Disease X has afflicted cattle and cut into ranchers' profits. A genet

Question

Disease X has afflicted cattle and cut into ranchers' profits. A genetic cause of the disease has been identified, as well as a gene therapy that can completely eradicate the cause of the disease in cattle. By applying this gene therapy to their cattle and eradicating the genetic susceptibility to the disease, ranchers will be able to carry on business in the future without incidence of Disease X in their cattle.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

(A) The gene therapy will not cause any defects in cattle.

(B) All cases of Disease X are equally severe.

(C) There are no treatments of Disease X that are more effective than the gene therapy in question.

(D) There are no diseases other than Disease X that currently threaten the cattle.

(E) There are no precursors to or triggers of Disease X, genetic or otherwise, other than the one targeted by the new gene therapy.

Why can't it be A or D? For ans A, if the gene therapy cause defects in cattle, the rancher's business will be affected too. For Ans D, if there are other diseases other than X, the rancher's business will be affected too? Both questioned the use of gene therapy.

Can anyone explain to me?

Thank you.

Can anyone explain to me?

Thank you.

Virgo · Accepted Answer

You have to look at the conclusion properly. Conclusion states that "ranchers will be able to carry on business in the future  without incidence of Disease X  in their cattle". So to weaken this we have to come up with something ,negation of which proves that the disease might not be eradicated fully. Negation of Option E clearly weakens the complete conclusion. However negation of option A says nothing about the eradication of the disease. For option D negation shows that there might be some other disease that can threaten the cattle but we are not concerned about other disease (out of scope). We only want the eradication of specific disease & ranchers carrying forward business.

Option E : there are two things: necessary condition and sufficient condition. Author assumes that gene therapy is sufficient condition for eradication of the disease . But if there are more than one causes for the disease and you are treating only one of them , eradication might not be happen.Targeting one of the causes represents necessary condition only. Sufficient condition would be that only one cause of the disease exists and targeting that particular factor will ensure eradication.

Vishvesh88 · Answer

Disease X has afflicted cattle and cut into ranchers' profits. A genetic cause of the disease has been identified, as well as a gene therapy that can completely eradicate the cause of the disease in cattle. By applying this gene therapy to their cattle and eradicating the genetic susceptibility to the disease, ranchers will be able to carry on business in the future without incidence of Disease X in their cattle.

1) Paraphrase first: And find the crux to the argument. Assumption questions should have a logical flow.
 I have seen users blindly negating assumption questions and choosing wrong. 
2) About negation : Negating an option should "NOT" destroy the argument as a whole rather weaken it.
3) Always remember, assumption should be within the purview of the argument and logically connected to the conclusion.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

A. The gene therapy  will not cause  any defects in cattle.

"Will" always represents an extremity. 
Negation : The gene therapy "does cause" defects to the cattle, This DESTROYS the argument as a whole.
The argument is about following the approach of gene therapy to eradicate Disease X, but if, the therapy itself causes defects, then the argument (Conclusion and premise) is null and void. OUT.

B. All cases of Disease X are equally  severe .

Nothing about severity is mentioned. OUT.

C. There are no treatments of Disease X that are  more effective  than the gene therapy in question.

Effectiveness is not within the purview of the argument. OUT.

D. There are  no diseases other than Disease X  that currently threaten the cattle.

Even if there are diseases, the argument's concern is related to  "Disease X" . My point here is logical flow and within the purview. This option is clearly OUT.

E. There are no precursors to or triggers of Disease X, genetic or otherwise, other than the one targeted by the new gene therapy.

Scope of Argument: The option is speaking of triggers of "Disease X" --> Within the purview.

Negation: There are triggers apart from the one targeted by the new gene therapy. If there are, then the ranchers may not be able to carry out business in the future. CORRECT.

Also notice that between A and E, A destroys the argument but E weakens it. That's the difference.

abhimahna · Answer

In addition to the above explanation, I would like to add one more point.

Notice the premise "as well as a gene therapy  that can completely eradicate  the cause of the disease in cattle.".

So, the author is assuming that there wouldn't be any other cause for this diseases to occur. Hence, E is the right answer.

Abhishek009 · Answer

Genetic Cause -----> Diesease X
Gene therapy can completely eradicate Diesease X in cattle -----> Ranchers can carry on Business

(A) Any other defects is not within the scope of the stimulus...

(B) Severity of diesease is not our concern..

(C) There may be other treatments , but we are not interested in it, neither does it come within the scope of the stimulus...

(D) Other diesease affecting cattle is out of scope...

(E) If there are other triggers of Diesease X then the gene therapy will not eradicate Diesease X in cattle and the problems will not be resolved...
 
Hence answer must be (E)...

NandishSS · Answer

HI GMATNinja , mikemcgarry , egmat , RonPurewal , DmitryFarber , MagooshExpert (Carolyn), ccooley , SarahPurewal , dave13 Can you please help me with this question. A. The gene therapy will not cause any defects in cattle. --> Why is it wrong? If gene therapy causes some other defects how will be able carry on business in the future? D. There are no diseases other than Disease X that currently threaten the cattle. E. There are no precursors to or triggers of Disease X, genetic or otherwise, other than the one targeted by the new gene therapy. Unable to eliminate among above three

dave13 · Answer

hello NandishSS how is your gmat life

lets read again: Disease X has afflicted cattle and cut into ranchers' profits. A genetic cause of the disease has been identified, as well as a gene therapy that can completely eradicate the cause of the disease in cattle. By applying this gene therapy to their cattle and eradicating the genetic susceptibility to the disease, ranchers will be able to carry on business in the future without incidence of Disease X in their cattle. To summarize: some diseases occurred and infected cattle; The cause of diseases was identified; The genetic therapy WILL ERADDICATE THE GENETIC SUCEPTIBILITY TO THIS DISEASE; ( It means that cattle`s immune system won`t be susceptible to this diseases in future even if virus appears ) Farmers will be happy; Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends? ( based on my CR experience your assumption must be relevant to main idea of topic ) A. The gene therapy will not cause any defects in cattle. (This is out of scope, “the defects” are not mentioned at all) Also DEFECTS is not the main idea of the topic. We talk mainly about gene therapy that cures cattle. B. All cases of Disease X are equally severe. (we are not concerned about how severe disease is because this is not the main idea of the topic) C. There are no treatments of Disease X that are more effective than the gene therapy in question. (you can`t assume this because you don’t know) D. There are no diseases other than Disease X that currently threaten the cattle. (you can`t assume this because you don’t know, how can you know this ?

) E. There are no precursors to or triggers of Disease X, genetic or otherwise, other than the one targeted by the new gene therapy. ( Correct. Let me remind you the extract below: “ By applying this gene therapy to their cattle and eradicating the genetic susceptibility to the disease , ranchers will be able to carry on business in the future without incidence of Disease X in their cattle . ” So as per vet docs there no precursors i.e. signs of disease X, other than the one that is being eradicated through genetic therapy. Based on option E, you can safely assume that X diseases is ONLY triggered by THAT ONE GENETIC CAUSE THAT IS BEING ERADICATED THROUGH GENETIC THERAPY

BECAUSE ranchers will be able to carry on business in the future without incidence of Disease X in their cattle. have a great day!

NandishSS · Answer

dave13 have a great day you too!

dave13 · Answer

NandishSS Assumption can be new Info YET RELEVANT TO MAIN IDEA , ( defects in cattle - is NOT MAIN IDEA/ NOT A PRIMARY PURPOSE OF "PASSAGE" thanks

push12345 · Answer

Narrowing down to A and E 
E seems more correct as assuming that there is no alternate cause for the same

Pas4867 · Answer

E is the right answer. A is immaterial to the conclusion, whether or not the gene therapy will cause defects does not change the fact that there will be no more incidences of Disease X. B is completely immaterial, as are C and D. The presence of other diseases that threaten cattle, presence of more effective treatments and relative severity of each individual case does not affect the conclusion. E is the right answer since this assumptions closes the possibility that here could be something that could cause Disease X that the gene therapy does not target.

celo700 · Answer

Conclusion: Ranchers will be able to carry on business in the future without incidence of Disease X in their cattle. Why? 
Because gene therapy will eradicate the genetic susceptibility to the disease.
But is genetic susceptibility the only cause of disease X ? what if there are other causes that gene therapy cannot cure?

Defects in cattle is out of scope for the argument. It is a matter of whether Disease X can be eradicated or not.

Severity of Disease X is out of scope.

Effectiveness of gene therapy is out of scope.

Scope of discussion is Disease X. We are not concerned about other Diseases.

This sentence simplifies to - there are no other causes for Disease X, other than the one gene therapy can eradicate. Hence, correct.

Bunuel · Answer

Official Explanation Reading the question: we learn about the deadly Disease X. Since we have a brief argument, we can use term matching here: what terms are left poorly matched between evidence and conclusion? https://gmatclub.com/forum/download/file.php?id=50076 Creating a filter: the last row gives us a mismatch. In the evidence, we have the phrase "completely eradicate the cause of the disease," and in the conclusion we have "will be able to carry on business in the future without incidence." This is the shaky logical connection. Maybe the therapy will have to be applied to each new generation of cattle? We look for something along the lines--it doesn't attack the therapy so much as the connection between therapy and no incidence in the future. Applying the filter: (A) and (B) do not concern the connection between therapy and intended outcome. Neither do (C) and (D). Choice (E) is suggesting that there is some other cause of Disease X. In such a case, the therapy could work perfectly, but the intended outcome might not manifest. This might seem to contradict the prompt, at first; doesn't the prompt say that the therapy eradicates the cause? On closer inspection, we can see that the prompt says, "A genetic cause of the disease has been identified..." The prompt leaves open the possibility that there is another cause of the disease, beyond the genetic one that has been identified and which is addressed by the therapy. The correct answer is (E). image024.jpg

Divijakanneganty · Answer

Here's my take on it...
Conclusion: Ranchers will be able to carry on business in the future without incidence of Disease X in their cattle.
 
Assumptions are:
1. The gene therapy will be effective enough to curb the incidence completely
2. There are no other treatments but GT
3. There will not be any other strains of X that cannot be cured by the current GT
4. (A little stretch) GT will be affordable and accessible to the ranchers

Option C is misleading but is a wrong option as it contains the word "more"

Gijmaja · Answer

Wait, what?

If there are no other causes of the disease and the treatment can fully eradicate the problem, than how come E is right? E just says that we will not have any other problem connected with disease X in the future. that is already specifically addressed in the question. eradicating, as per my understanding, means completely taking care of the problem. Why do we need to repeat the same thing twice?

I think A is the right answer here.

DmitryFarberMPrep · Answer

Gijmaja

Notice what's getting completely eradicated in the premise: not Disease X, but the genetic cause of the disease. If there are other ways to get the disease, then we can't say the threat is gone.

A, on the other hand, is talking about other problems. Since the conclusion is only about carrying on business without Disease X, the author isn't assuming that no other problems will be introduced. If A specifically ruled out problems that could lead to Disease X, or problems that could close the business entirely, then it would be necessary, but as it stands it's out of scope.

Having said all that, I must point out that this question is not as precisely written as it could be. I get the feeling it was spun off from one or more other questions in which these traps fit more closely with the content. Although it's certainly possible for a disease to have more than one cause, it's kind of hard to imagine that we can completely eradicate a genetic cause only to have something completely different pop up and cause the same disease. Also, E sounds a bit extreme, since we might eliminate a disease without eliminating all its "precursors or triggers."

Gijmaja · Answer

Thanks for your clarification . Very useful, as always.

Raman109 · Answer

Understanding the argument - ranchers will be able to carry on business in the future without the incidence of Disease X in their cattle because of the application of gene therapy to their cattle and eradicating the genetic susceptibility to the disease (what disease - Disease X)

(A) The gene therapy will not cause any defects in cattle. We are not worried about "defects." We are worried about Disease X. As long as Disease X is eradicated, we are good with the conclusion. This choice, at best, is out of scope.

(B) All cases of Disease X are equally severe. - Out of scope.

(C) There are no treatments of Disease X that are more effective than the gene therapy in question. - Even if gene therapy is more effective, what we are worried about is if all triggers are eliminated by Gene therapy. What if there are other genetic or other triggers that gene therapy doesn't cure? This option, at best, is out of scope.

(D) There are no diseases other than Disease X that currently threaten the cattle. - Even if there are other diseases, we are not bothered. The scope of the argument is Disease X - this is out of scope.

(E) There are no precursors to or triggers of Disease X, genetic or otherwise, other than the one targeted by the new gene therapy. - perfect.

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

Disease X has afflicted cattle and cut into ranchers' profits. A genet

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Disease X has afflicted cattle and cut into ranchers' profits. A genet

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards