It is currently 19 Feb 2018, 09:46

### 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 number of people diagnosed as having a certain intestinal disease

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Senior Manager
Joined: 02 Dec 2014
Posts: 370
Location: Russian Federation
Concentration: General Management, Economics
GMAT 1: 640 Q44 V33
WE: Sales (Telecommunications)
Re: The number of people diagnosed as having a certain intestinal disease [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Sep 2015, 06:43
Steinbeck wrote:
Konstantin1983 wrote:
Steinbeck wrote:

Can we select B in absence of C. I'd like to understand the effect of B here.

carcass, egmat and other moderators , if you can throw some light.

I think that B strengthens the argument since B says that people still drink enough water and this eliminates alternative explanation (i.e drop in water consumption). And C gives alternative explanation. C says that reason is not better quality of water, it is right diagnostics.

Konstantin1983

B says that both kind of people, who develop intestinal disease and who do not develop, drink almost same quantity of bottled spring water. This means that bottled water is not the cause rather something else is responsible.

How is it strengthening?

I wanted to say that reduction in rate of disease is not because of difference in water consumption. Hence option B is not a weakener. Or it doesn't make sense?
_________________

"Are you gangsters?" - "No we are Russians!"

 e-GMAT Discount Codes EMPOWERgmat Discount Codes Kaplan GMAT Prep Discount Codes
Current Student
Joined: 28 Nov 2014
Posts: 916
Concentration: Strategy
Schools: Fisher '19 (M)
GPA: 3.71
Re: The number of people diagnosed as having a certain intestinal disease [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Sep 2015, 21:48
Konstantin1983

I wanted to say that reduction in rate of disease is not because of difference in water consumption. Hence option B is not a weakener. Or it doesn't make sense?[/quote]

Okay. Thanks.
Jamboree GMAT Instructor
Status: GMAT Expert
Affiliations: Jamboree Education Pvt Ltd
Joined: 15 Jul 2015
Posts: 284
Location: India
Re: The number of people diagnosed as having a certain intestinal disease [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 Sep 2015, 04:02
B - Cannot be the answer for " Weakener".

Both kinds of people - A - Diagnosed & B - Not Diagnosed - drink nearly same quantity of bottled spring water (assuming - bottled spring water is after the improved sanitary conditions at water treatment plants). This fact doesn't hit the causal conclusion.
_________________

Aryama Dutta Saikia
Jamboree Education Pvt. Ltd.

Director
Joined: 24 Nov 2015
Posts: 584
Location: United States (LA)
Re: The number of people diagnosed as having a certain intestinal disease [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Apr 2016, 14:11
straightforward answer works out to be option C.It is a clear weakener
Intern
Joined: 16 Jun 2014
Posts: 20
Location: Brazil
GMAT 1: 650 Q47 V32
GPA: 3.87
Re: The number of people diagnosed as having a certain intestinal disease [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 Jun 2016, 17:08
hemanthp wrote:
C.

But B is tricky to eliminate. Good question.

"significantly different quantities" in B is the main key word to eliminate this answer choice. straight on C after this catch.
Verbal Forum Moderator
Joined: 13 Feb 2015
Posts: 881
Re: The number of people diagnosed as having a certain intestinal disease [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Jul 2017, 07:12
Merged topics. Please, search before posting questions!
_________________

Manager
Status: IF YOU CAN DREAM IT, YOU CAN DO IT
Joined: 03 Jul 2017
Posts: 203
Location: India
Re: The number of people diagnosed as having a certain intestinal disease [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Aug 2017, 02:00
Even after going through all the explanations i am still not understanding why B must not the answer. Because option B says that the Bottled spring water that is from the water treatment plant is doing nothing to the people diagnosed with the disease and for people who have not contracted such disease. So this statement says that the water treatment plant does nothing to reduce the intestinal disorder and hence weakens the official's conclusion.
But where as the option C talks about the new diagnostic technique which is not even present in the argument. So i choose option B. Can some expert mikemcgarry GMATNinja please shed some light on this . Thank you
Board of Directors
Status: Aiming MBA
Joined: 18 Jul 2015
Posts: 3072
Location: India
Concentration: Healthcare, Technology
GPA: 3.65
WE: Information Technology (Health Care)
Re: The number of people diagnosed as having a certain intestinal disease [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Aug 2017, 07:34
longhaul123 wrote:
Even after going through all the explanations i am still not understanding why B must not the answer. Because option B says that the Bottled spring water that is from the water treatment plant is doing nothing to the people diagnosed with the disease and for people who have not contracted such disease. So this statement says that the water treatment plant does nothing to reduce the intestinal disorder and hence weakens the official's conclusion.
But where as the option C talks about the new diagnostic technique which is not even present in the argument. So i choose option B. Can some expert mikemcgarry GMATNinja please shed some light on this . Thank you

Hi longhaul123 ,

Notice that we need to weaken what author provided as a reason for the conclusion.

B is saying there was no significant difference in the consumption of bottled water. It is actually ruling out a scenario that could be a weakener to our conclusion. It is saying what people were drinking was same throughout. Hence, I would rule out B because it is a strengthener.

It is saying "Hey Man, you are wrong". There is no positive impact of sanitary conditions rather there is a new technique that has been developed and which is telling us that people were having ulcers rather than disorder. Hence, people are still the same but what was previously determined was wrong. Hence, it is a strongest weakener to what Author is saying.

Does that make sense?
_________________

How I improved from V21 to V40! ?

How to use this forum in THE BEST way?

Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4680
Re: The number of people diagnosed as having a certain intestinal disease [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Aug 2017, 10:21
1
KUDOS
Expert's post
longhaul123 wrote:
Even after going through all the explanations i am still not understanding why B must not the answer. Because option B says that the Bottled spring water that is from the water treatment plant is doing nothing to the people diagnosed with the disease and for people who have not contracted such disease. So this statement says that the water treatment plant does nothing to reduce the intestinal disorder and hence weakens the official's conclusion.
But where as the option C talks about the new diagnostic technique which is not even present in the argument. So i choose option B. Can some expert mikemcgarry GMATNinja please shed some light on this . Thank you

Dear longhaul123,

I see that abhimahna answered your question, but I am going to add a few thoughts as well.

Here's (B)
B. Bottled spring water has not been consumed in significantly different quantities by people diagnosed as having the intestinal disease, as compared to people who did not contract the disease.
First of all, the wording is very tricky. What it is saying is that:
People with the intestinal disease didn't drink a lot of bottled water.
People without the intestinal disease drank a lot of bottled water
.

Also, notice how you changed the logic. You spoke of "Bottled spring water that is from the water treatment plant." My friend, with all due respect, this is a major misunderstanding. This is an example of the real-world experience you need to answer GMAT CR questions. Water that comes from a water-treatment plant is NOT spring water. Also, by its very nature, a water-treatment plant is not a bottling facility: nothing is bottled there. A spring is a place where water flows up naturally from the ground: many times, this is some of the purest water one could possibly drink. Many companies (Arrowhead, Volvic, Iceland, Alhambra, Poland Springs, Crystal Geyser, etc.) bottle spring water in plastic bottles, and these plastic bottles of water are available to consumers. This is a very different source of water than the water that comes out of the tap. Water from a water-treatment facility would be water out of the tap in people's house. Some people don't trust tap water, so they go to the store to buy bottled spring water. Other people point out that tap water is held to strict standards and bottled water isn't; also, the plastic bottles aren't healthy because they leech chemicals into the water. This has been a major debate in the USA for several years.

In order to do well on the GMAT CR, you need to read the news and be aware of issues in the real world. See:
GMAT Critical Reasoning and Outside Knowledge

Thus, what we learn is that the people who were drinking tap water, the water that had come from the water-treatment facility, got the intestinal disease, but the folks who avoided tap water and instead bought & drank bottled spring water did not get the disease. Thus, the source of the disease originated in the water-treatment plant. This would be a strengthener when you understand what it is saying. It's very typical for a strengthener to be a trap answer for a weakener question.

Here's (C)
(C) Because of a new diagnostic technique, many people who until this year would have been diagnosed as having the intestinal disease are now correctly diagnosed as suffering from intestinal ulcers.

This "new diagnostic technique" corrected diagnoses.

Last year, a large number of people were diagnosed with this intestinal disease. That's part of the evidence. What is not discussed, though, in the prompt is whether they were diagnosed correctly. That was before the "new diagnostic technique." (C) tells us that before this "new diagnostic technique," people were misdiagnosed with the intestinal disease. Thus, it could be that the high number of diagnoses of the intestinal disease was due, in part, to a large number of misdiagnoses, people who actually had intestinal ulcers, but the medical technology available at the time incorrectly ascribed their symptoms to the intestinal disease.

This also would explain why, when the "new diagnostic technique" was introduced this year, why the number of diagnoses of the intestinal disease was lower this year--with the new procedure, there was no confusion. The people suffering from intestinal ulcers were no longer misdiagnosed as having the intestinal disease.

This is a truly brilliant OA. It's not that the actual number of cases of the intestinal disease decreased at all. Instead, the drop was due to a correction of a measurement error: other diseased were being misdiagnosed as the intestinal disease, inflating the number of those cases, so when all the diagnoses were corrected, the low number of cases of the intestinal disease was more in line with reality.

Does all this make sense?
Mike :-)
_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire. — William Butler Yeats (1865 – 1939)

Manager
Joined: 15 Jun 2016
Posts: 95
Re: The number of people diagnosed as having a certain intestinal disease [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Aug 2017, 10:28
How option c is correct one, how it is weakening the argument?
Director
Joined: 28 Mar 2017
Posts: 879
Re: The number of people diagnosed as having a certain intestinal disease [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Aug 2017, 11:51
The number of people diagnosed as having a certain intestinal disease has dropped significantly in a rural county this year, as compared to last year. Health officials attribute this decrease entirely to improved sanitary conditions at water-treatment plants, which made for cleaner water this year and thus reduced the incidence of the disease.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the health officials’ explanation for the lower incidence of the disease?

A. Many new water-treatment plants have been built in the last five years in the rural county.
Out of scope

B. Bottled spring water has not been consumed in significantly different quantities by people diagnosed as having the intestinal disease, as compared to people who did not contract the disease.
If the bottled spring water is consumed in same quantities by both the sufferers and non-sufferers, then this option removes the chances that there might be an alternate cause of the diseases. This is strengthener.

C. Because of a new diagnostic technique, many people who until this year would have been diagnosed as having the intestinal disease are now correctly diagnosed as suffering from intestinal ulcers.
Correct for the stated reasons.

D. Because of medical advances this year, far fewer people who contract the intestinal disease will develop severe cases of the disease.
This option talks about the future possibility. Out of scope.

E. The water in the rural county was brought up to the sanitary standards of the water in neighboring counties ten years ago.
Out of scope
_________________
Senior Manager
Joined: 26 Dec 2015
Posts: 285
Location: United States (CA)
Concentration: Finance, Strategy
WE: Investment Banking (Venture Capital)
Re: The number of people diagnosed as having a certain intestinal disease [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 Sep 2017, 19:31
The number of people diagnosed as having a certain intestinal disease has dropped significantly in a rural county this year, as compared to last year. Health officials attribute this decrease entirely to improved sanitary conditions at water-treatment plants, which made for cleaner water this year and thus reduced the incidence of the disease.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the health officials’ explanation for the lower incidence of the disease?

A. Many new water-treatment plants have been built in the last five years in the rural county.
- Who cares how many water-treatment plants there are?

B. Bottled spring water has not been consumed in significantly different quantities by people diagnosed as having the intestinal disease, as compared to people who did not contract the disease.
- Why does the consumption of bottled spring water matter? What if its bottled alkaline water? Bottled sparkling water?

C. Because of a new diagnostic technique, many people who until this year would have been diagnosed as having the intestinal disease are now correctly diagnosed as suffering from intestinal ulcers.
- INSTEAD OF IMPROVED SANITARY CONDITIONS AT WATER-TREATMENT PLANTS, want to know why there is a lower incidence of the disease? Because people were incorrectly diagnosed before to overinflate #s and now since they can be correctly diagnosed, less people will fall into this bucket.

D. Because of medical advances this year, far fewer people who contract the intestinal disease will develop severe cases of the disease.
- We don't care about severe cases vs. cases that are non-severe

E. The water in the rural county was brought up to the sanitary standards of the water in neighboring counties ten years ago.
- Why do we care about water in neighboring counties ten years ago? this could either be positive or negative depending on those neighboring counties...

Verbal Forum Moderator
Status: Greatness begins beyond your comfort zone
Joined: 08 Dec 2013
Posts: 1909
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
Schools: Kelley '20, ISB '19
GPA: 3.2
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
Re: The number of people diagnosed as having a certain intestinal disease [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Sep 2017, 11:31
The number of people diagnosed as having a certain intestinal disease has dropped significantly in a rural county this year, as compared to last year. Health officials attribute this decrease entirely to improved sanitary conditions at water-treatment plants, which made for cleaner water this year and thus reduced the incidence of the disease.

Type - weaken
Boil it down - improvement in sanitary conditions at water-treatment plants resulted in cleaner water this year and thus reduced the incidence of intestinal disease

A. Many new water-treatment plants have been built in the last five years in the rural county. - Irrelevant - we are only concerned with last year and this year
B. Bottled spring water has not been consumed in significantly different quantities by people diagnosed as having the intestinal disease, as compared to people who did not contract the disease. - Irrelevant
C. Because of a new diagnostic technique, many people who until this year would have been diagnosed as having the intestinal disease are now correctly diagnosed as suffering from intestinal ulcers. - Correct - so in previous years , the number of diagnosed cases might have been more than actual because of this reason
D. Because of medical advances this year, far fewer people who contract the intestinal disease will develop severe cases of the disease. - Irrelevant
E. The water in the rural county was brought up to the sanitary standards of the water in neighboring counties ten years ago. - Irrelevant

_________________

When everything seems to be going against you, remember that the airplane takes off against the wind, not with it. - Henry Ford
The Moment You Think About Giving Up, Think Of The Reason Why You Held On So Long
+1 Kudos if you find this post helpful

Manager
Joined: 30 Apr 2017
Posts: 88
Re: The number of people diagnosed as having a certain intestinal disease [#permalink]

### Show Tags

11 Sep 2017, 15:46
catennacio wrote:
seekmba wrote:
C it is.

Health official says that the number of people diagnosed of certain intestinal disease has dropped sigficantly this year. The official concludes that the drop in disease is because of better sanitation at water treatment plants.

We have to weaken the arguument.......meaning we have to find somthing which will prove that the drop in disease is not because of better sanitation but because of something else....option (C) does that.

C says....Because of a new diagnostic technique, many people who until this year would have been diagnosed as
having the intestinal disease are now correctly diagnosed as suffering from intestinal ulcers....so the drop in disease is because of new diagnostic technique.

I didn't choose C because I think intestinal ulcer is an intestinal disease, is it not?

exactly! that is my problem... could anyone explain pls
Manager
Joined: 30 Apr 2017
Posts: 88
Re: The number of people diagnosed as having a certain intestinal disease [#permalink]

### Show Tags

11 Sep 2017, 15:52
mikemcgarry wrote:
longhaul123 wrote:
Even after going through all the explanations i am still not understanding why B must not the answer. Because option B says that the Bottled spring water that is from the water treatment plant is doing nothing to the people diagnosed with the disease and for people who have not contracted such disease. So this statement says that the water treatment plant does nothing to reduce the intestinal disorder and hence weakens the official's conclusion.
But where as the option C talks about the new diagnostic technique which is not even present in the argument. So i choose option B. Can some expert mikemcgarry GMATNinja please shed some light on this . Thank you

Dear longhaul123,

I see that abhimahna answered your question, but I am going to add a few thoughts as well.

Here's (B)
B. Bottled spring water has not been consumed in significantly different quantities by people diagnosed as having the intestinal disease, as compared to people who did not contract the disease.
First of all, the wording is very tricky. What it is saying is that:
People with the intestinal disease didn't drink a lot of bottled water.
People without the intestinal disease drank a lot of bottled water
.

Also, notice how you changed the logic. You spoke of "Bottled spring water that is from the water treatment plant." My friend, with all due respect, this is a major misunderstanding. This is an example of the real-world experience you need to answer GMAT CR questions. Water that comes from a water-treatment plant is NOT spring water. Also, by its very nature, a water-treatment plant is not a bottling facility: nothing is bottled there. A spring is a place where water flows up naturally from the ground: many times, this is some of the purest water one could possibly drink. Many companies (Arrowhead, Volvic, Iceland, Alhambra, Poland Springs, Crystal Geyser, etc.) bottle spring water in plastic bottles, and these plastic bottles of water are available to consumers. This is a very different source of water than the water that comes out of the tap. Water from a water-treatment facility would be water out of the tap in people's house. Some people don't trust tap water, so they go to the store to buy bottled spring water. Other people point out that tap water is held to strict standards and bottled water isn't; also, the plastic bottles aren't healthy because they leech chemicals into the water. This has been a major debate in the USA for several years.

In order to do well on the GMAT CR, you need to read the news and be aware of issues in the real world. See:
GMAT Critical Reasoning and Outside Knowledge

Thus, what we learn is that the people who were drinking tap water, the water that had come from the water-treatment facility, got the intestinal disease, but the folks who avoided tap water and instead bought & drank bottled spring water did not get the disease. Thus, the source of the disease originated in the water-treatment plant. This would be a strengthener when you understand what it is saying. It's very typical for a strengthener to be a trap answer for a weakener question.

Here's (C)
(C) Because of a new diagnostic technique, many people who until this year would have been diagnosed as having the intestinal disease are now correctly diagnosed as suffering from intestinal ulcers.

This "new diagnostic technique" corrected diagnoses.

Last year, a large number of people were diagnosed with this intestinal disease. That's part of the evidence. What is not discussed, though, in the prompt is whether they were diagnosed correctly. That was before the "new diagnostic technique." (C) tells us that before this "new diagnostic technique," people were misdiagnosed with the intestinal disease. Thus, it could be that the high number of diagnoses of the intestinal disease was due, in part, to a large number of misdiagnoses, people who actually had intestinal ulcers, but the medical technology available at the time incorrectly ascribed their symptoms to the intestinal disease.

This also would explain why, when the "new diagnostic technique" was introduced this year, why the number of diagnoses of the intestinal disease was lower this year--with the new procedure, there was no confusion. The people suffering from intestinal ulcers were no longer misdiagnosed as having the intestinal disease.

This is a truly brilliant OA. It's not that the actual number of cases of the intestinal disease decreased at all. Instead, the drop was due to a correction of a measurement error: other diseased were being misdiagnosed as the intestinal disease, inflating the number of those cases, so when all the diagnoses were corrected, the low number of cases of the intestinal disease was more in line with reality.

Does all this make sense?
Mike

you are awesome! thank you...
Re: The number of people diagnosed as having a certain intestinal disease   [#permalink] 11 Sep 2017, 15:52

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 35 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by