It is currently 21 Nov 2017, 21:20

### GMAT Club Daily Prep

#### Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# The government has made great strides in implementing

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Senior Manager
Joined: 22 Sep 2005
Posts: 278

Kudos [?]: 244 [1], given: 1

### Show Tags

26 Aug 2009, 08:15
1
KUDOS
2
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

35% (medium)

Question Stats:

62% (01:01) correct 38% (01:14) wrong based on 1658 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

I have one question here:

Why B is wrong?

The government has made great strides in implementing immunization in public school systems despite its cost. When all children are properly immunized, we will be able to ensure their health.

Which of the following identifies an assumption in the author's argument?

Only public schools require immunization.
Children are not already properly immunized.
If not immunized, most children will fall victim to disease.
Immunization is effective enough to justify its cost to the taxpayer.
Immunization is the only precaution necessary to guarantee a child's health.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

Kudos [?]: 244 [1], given: 1

Manager
Affiliations: CFA Level 2 Candidate
Joined: 29 Jun 2009
Posts: 218

Kudos [?]: 292 [0], given: 2

Schools: RD 2: Darden Class of 2012

### Show Tags

26 Aug 2009, 10:06
IMO E

Argument "When all children are properly immunized, we will be able to ensure their health."

Only public schools require immunization. - Not related to the argument
Children are not already properly immunized. - Close but I would say it is not a required assumption because some may already be immunized and some may not be.
If not immunized, most children will fall victim to disease. - Out of Scope
Immunization is effective enough to justify its cost to the taxpayer. - Argument is about health not cost
Immunization is the only precaution necessary to guarantee a child's health. - Perfect fit as argument says because of X then Y. Doesn't allow the counter of because of X and Z then Y

Kudos [?]: 292 [0], given: 2

Current Student
Joined: 12 Jun 2009
Posts: 1836

Kudos [?]: 277 [0], given: 52

Location: United States (NC)
Concentration: Strategy, Finance
Schools: UNC (Kenan-Flagler) - Class of 2013
GMAT 1: 720 Q49 V39
WE: Programming (Computer Software)

### Show Tags

26 Aug 2009, 11:21
yeah i agree. The gov is trying to ensure the children's health and immunization is a means. E basically says that to succeed (ensure health) immunization is needed.
_________________

Kudos [?]: 277 [0], given: 52

Senior Manager
Joined: 21 Jul 2009
Posts: 364

Kudos [?]: 200 [0], given: 22

Schools: LBS, INSEAD, IMD, ISB - Anything with just 1 yr program.

### Show Tags

26 Aug 2009, 12:19
netcaesar wrote:
I have one question here:

Why B is wrong?

The government has made great strides in implementing immunization in public school systems despite its cost. When all children are properly immunized, we will be able to ensure their health.

Which of the following identifies an assumption in the author's argument?

Only public schools require immunization.
Children are not already properly immunized.
If not immunized, most children will fall victim to disease.
Immunization is effective enough to justify its cost to the taxpayer.
Immunization is the only precaution necessary to guarantee a child's health.

I'd go with B only, post the OA from the source and we could dissect the train of thought.
_________________

I am AWESOME and it's gonna be LEGENDARY!!!

Kudos [?]: 200 [0], given: 22

Senior Manager
Joined: 16 Apr 2009
Posts: 317

Kudos [?]: 157 [0], given: 14

### Show Tags

26 Aug 2009, 17:33
I will go with E.

Conclusion :- When all children are properly immunized, we will be able to ensure their health

E undermines this conclusion

B - using Assumption negation technique becomes:-

does not undermine the conclusion. infact it agrees with the conclusion
_________________

Kudos [?]: 157 [0], given: 14

Senior Manager
Joined: 22 Sep 2005
Posts: 278

Kudos [?]: 244 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

28 Aug 2009, 10:30
OA is E.
I do not understand the last post.
In my opinion. if you negate B you negate the conclusion, but it is wrong here and I want to know WHY!!!

Kudos [?]: 244 [0], given: 1

Manager
Affiliations: CFA Level 2 Candidate
Joined: 29 Jun 2009
Posts: 218

Kudos [?]: 292 [0], given: 2

Schools: RD 2: Darden Class of 2012

### Show Tags

28 Aug 2009, 10:42
I think the issue in B is that it comes down to do we really need to assume this for the conclusion to be correct.

Conclusion
Through Immunization we will be able to ensure their health.

Scenario a) Children are not immunized vs b) Children are immunized
Does it really change whether or not we will be able to ensure their health? Not really. The question comes down do how can we ensure their health. The author is claiming immunization ensures health.
This is why E is correct
Immunization is the only precaution necessary to guarantee a child's health.

If E wasn't true then there would no way to ensure health because immunization might not protect against second hand smoke, radiation etc.

Kudos [?]: 292 [0], given: 2

Manager
Joined: 16 Jul 2009
Posts: 247

Kudos [?]: 447 [0], given: 3

### Show Tags

28 Aug 2009, 11:27
IMO E

Not B because its not only about immunization but also about ensuring of health..

Kudos [?]: 447 [0], given: 3

Manager
Status: Keep fighting!
Joined: 31 Jul 2010
Posts: 220

Kudos [?]: 540 [20], given: 104

WE 1: 2+ years - Programming
WE 2: 3+ years - Product developement,
WE 3: 2+ years - Program management

### Show Tags

17 Oct 2010, 17:26
20
KUDOS
25
This post was
BOOKMARKED
The government has made great strides in implementing immunization in public school systems despite its cost. When all children are properly immunized, we will be able to ensure their health.

Which of the following identifies an assumption in the author's argument?

Only public schools require immunization.
Children are not already properly immunized.
If not immunized, most children will fall victim to disease.
Immunization is effective enough to justify its cost to the taxpayer.
Immunization is the only precaution necessary to guarantee a child's health.

I liked this question and want to see the reasons why you all think the choices are wrong or right.

Please KUDOS me if you like the question.

[Reveal] Spoiler: explanation
"Ensuring kids' health" is a pretty broad and ambitious agenda, but the author says that it's a reachable goal if all kids are properly immunized. He must be assuming that nothing else is needed to achieve the goal, and that makes (E) right.

The possibility that other institutions (A) and, inferably, other populations, might need to be immunized falls outside of the scope, which deals with the health of kids only. (B), while tempting, is not something the author is counting on to be true; if, contrary to (B), the author were to learn that all kids are immunized, he'd simply say "Great! So their health is ensured." (This use of the Kaplan Denial Test—a concept we'll take up in the Challenge Workshop—demonstrates that (B) is not a necessary assumption.) (C) represents a common logical flaw. Yes, the author believes that immunization will ensure kids' health. That doesn't mean that lack of immunization will lead all to disease vulnerability. (D), meanwhile, goes way outside the scope in bringing in the cost issue, which is only a side note, not a major part of the logic.

Kudos [?]: 540 [20], given: 104

Intern
Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Posts: 20

Kudos [?]: 18 [1], given: 75

Re: Government immunization - Kaplan CR [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Oct 2010, 03:02
1
KUDOS
Premise: The govn't implemented the immunization in public schools despite its costs.
Premise: All children are properly immunized
Conclusion: We will be able to ensure children's health

The children's health can be ensured when they received proper immunization and they don't need other preventive methods.

Only public schools require immunization.--> Not relevant
Children are not already properly immunized. --> If children are not properly immunized, then now the gov't will provide them proper immunization. This is not the assumption the author based on to make conclusion
If not immunized, most children will fall victim to disease. --> not relevant
Immunization is effective enough to justify its cost to the taxpayer.--> not relevant
Immunization is the only precaution necessary to guarantee a child's health. --> This is the assumption the author based on to make conclusion. Children may suffer certain disease through eating habits --> children's health cannot be ensured.

Kudos [?]: 18 [1], given: 75

Senior Manager
Status: Can't give up
Joined: 20 Dec 2009
Posts: 305

Kudos [?]: 36 [0], given: 35

Re: Government immunization - Kaplan CR [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 Nov 2010, 12:56
3) If not immunized, most children will fall victim to disease.

and this will not keep good health.

Kudos [?]: 36 [0], given: 35

Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 7743

Kudos [?]: 17839 [6], given: 235

Location: Pune, India
Re: Government immunization - Kaplan CR [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 Nov 2010, 14:03
6
KUDOS
Expert's post
9
This post was
BOOKMARKED
amma4u wrote:
3) If not immunized, most children will fall victim to disease.

and this will not keep good health.

This is a trick used by GMAT. What you need to understand for these questions is the concept of necessary and sufficient conditions.

Immunization is one of the things that ensure the health of children (there are other factors such as nutrition, clean environment etc).
The author assumes that immunization is sufficient to ensure the health of children. That nothing else is needed. He says, "When all children are properly immunized, we will be able to ensure their health." That is his incorrect assumption. Answer is (E)

Let me come to why (C) is not the answer.
We know he believes that when all children all properly immunized, we will be able to ensure their health. But do we know what he thinks will happen if they are not immunized? Does he think most of them will fall victim to disease? Does he think they will be vulnerable to disease? We do not know. All we know is that he is assuming that if you vaccinate children, they will remain healthy. He is not assuming anything about what will happen if you do not vaccinate the children.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
My Blog

Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for \$199

Veritas Prep Reviews

Kudos [?]: 17839 [6], given: 235

Manager
Joined: 16 Jul 2010
Posts: 143

Kudos [?]: 17 [0], given: 0

Re: Government immunization - Kaplan CR [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 Nov 2010, 03:10
Why not B, Karishma?

Kudos [?]: 17 [0], given: 0

Manager
Status: I rest, I rust.
Joined: 04 Oct 2010
Posts: 121

Kudos [?]: 128 [0], given: 9

Schools: ISB - Co 2013
WE 1: IT Professional since 2006
Re: Government immunization - Kaplan CR [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 Nov 2010, 03:32
hemanthp wrote:
The government has made great strides in implementing immunization in public school systems despite its cost. When all children are properly immunized, we will be able to ensure their health.

Which of the following identifies an assumption in the author's argument?

Only public schools require immunization. - irrelevant
Children are not already properly immunized. - irrelevant
If not immunized, most children will fall victim to disease. - Again does not talk about health
Immunization is effective enough to justify its cost to the taxpayer. - Irrelevant
Immunization is the only precaution necessary to guarantee a child's health. - with this assumption, we can conclude that if we immunize a child we can ensure his/her health

_________________

Respect,
Vaibhav

PS: Correct me if I am wrong.

Kudos [?]: 128 [0], given: 9

Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 7743

Kudos [?]: 17839 [7], given: 235

Location: Pune, India
Re: Government immunization - Kaplan CR [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 Nov 2010, 06:07
7
KUDOS
Expert's post
Werewolf wrote:
Why not B, Karishma?

An assumption is a missing [highlight]necessary[/highlight] premise. The validity of author's conclusion is based on the validity of the assumption.

Conclusion: When all children are properly immunized, we will be able to ensure their health.

In his conclusion, he is not assuming that children are not immunized. He is saying that if they are, they will be healthy. The validity of this conclusion is not based on whether children are already immunized or not.

If I were to negate the assumption in option (B) and say 'Children are already properly immunized', his conclusion doesn't fall apart. According to the author then, they are healthy.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
My Blog

Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for \$199

Veritas Prep Reviews

Kudos [?]: 17839 [7], given: 235

Manager
Joined: 16 Jul 2010
Posts: 143

Kudos [?]: 17 [0], given: 0

Re: Government immunization - Kaplan CR [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Dec 2010, 20:05
Thanks Karishma. It's clear to me now.

Kudos [?]: 17 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Posts: 146

Kudos [?]: 124 [0], given: 37

Re: Government immunization - Kaplan CR [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 Dec 2010, 19:55
It was a close call between C and E for me...But I choose E because it seems to be a missing premise for author's conclusion.
Assumptions are nothing but missing premises, an additional reason to prove that the conclusion is valid. On that note I think E is more accurate than C.
IMO (E)
_________________

Thanks,
VP

Kudos [?]: 124 [0], given: 37

Manager
Joined: 01 Nov 2010
Posts: 173

Kudos [?]: 52 [0], given: 20

Location: Zürich, Switzerland
Re: Government immunization - Kaplan CR [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Dec 2010, 03:25
It took 1.41 secs to me to reach to the correct answer.

Kudos [?]: 52 [0], given: 20

Retired Moderator
Status: 2000 posts! I don't know whether I should feel great or sad about it! LOL
Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 1628

Kudos [?]: 1124 [0], given: 109

Location: Peru
Schools: Harvard, Stanford, Wharton, MIT & HKS (Government)
WE 1: Economic research
WE 2: Banking
WE 3: Government: Foreign Trade and SMEs

### Show Tags

23 Apr 2012, 09:28
+1 E

As the Powerscore CR Bible mentions: In CR, when the author concludes about a causality relationship, he or she assumes that the cause mentioned is the ONLY cause for the described effect. There are NOT other possible causes.
_________________

"Life’s battle doesn’t always go to stronger or faster men; but sooner or later the man who wins is the one who thinks he can."

My Integrated Reasoning Logbook / Diary: http://gmatclub.com/forum/my-ir-logbook-diary-133264.html

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings

Kudos [?]: 1124 [0], given: 109

Manager
Joined: 28 Sep 2011
Posts: 68

Kudos [?]: 33 [0], given: 10

Location: United States
GMAT 1: 520 Q34 V27
GMAT 3: 690 Q47 V38
GPA: 3.01
WE: Information Technology (Commercial Banking)

### Show Tags

23 Apr 2012, 22:08
I went with C, E sounds too strong, since it uses "only"

Kudos [?]: 33 [0], given: 10

Re: The government has made great strides in implementing   [#permalink] 23 Apr 2012, 22:08

Go to page    1   2   3    Next  [ 44 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by