In 1984, almost 2 percent of humans who were admitted to hospital emer

Question

In 1984, almost 2 percent of humans who were admitted to hospital emergency rooms after suffering a scorpion bite in the southwestern United States died from the attack. Ten years later, this figure had jumped to 4 percent. Clearly, the venom of the scorpion has become much more toxic to humans.

Which of the following statements, if true, most seriously weakens the above conclusion?

(A) The scorpion population in the southwestern United States has remained steady since 1984.

(B) There have been few innovations in the treatment of scorpion bites since 1984.

(C) Most people who suffer scorpion bites are inexperienced hikers who are unaware of the best methods to avoid coming in contact with a scorpion.

(D) Since 1984, people have learned that scorpion bites can be treated in the home as long as they are detected early.

(E) People who survive one scorpion bite have a better than average chance of surviving a second bite.

gloomybison · Answer

(A) The scorpion population in the southwestern United States has remained steady since 1984.
Irrelevant

(B) There have been few innovations in the treatment of scorpion bites since 1984.
Actually, if there were innovation in the treatment it would strengthen the argument further because even with all those innovation you get a higher death rate.

(C) Most people who suffer scorpion bites are inexperienced hikers who are unaware of the best methods to avoid coming in contact with a scorpion.
We don't care who the victims are, this wouldn't weaken/strengthen in anyway

(D) Since 1984, people have learned that scorpion bites can be treated in the home as long as they are detected early.
 Correct 
Now imagine that before when people got stung, they rushed to hospital, whereas now they know how to treat it at home so they are less likely to rush hospital and make it in the hospital records. Those who rush could be inexperienced or showing severe side effects etc.

Let's employ numbers; in 1984, 10000 people got stung; they went to hospital and only 200 (%2) died. Today 20000 people got stung, 15000 of them knew how to treat it at home, 5000 went to hospital and 200 (%4) died

Normally official numbers would tell that before 10000 got stung and 200 died whereas today 5000 got stung and 200 died. But these official numbers do not take into account those who didn't go to hospital since they treated themselves at home, warping the real numbers.

(E) People who survive one scorpion bite have a better than average chance of surviving a second bite.
Irrelevant, but if anything it would strengthen the argument because it would imply that those who gut stung and survived can protect themselves by building up some kind of immunity whereas; most of those who died are dying because they don't have any immunity, making it more lethal because if you don't have immunity your chances to die are higher

SohGMAT2020 · Answer

In 1984, almost 2 percent of humans who were admitted to hospital emergency rooms after suffering a scorpion bite in the southwestern United States died from the attack. Ten years later, this figure had jumped to 4 percent.  Clearly, the venom of the scorpion has become much more toxic to humans.

So, we have to weaken the conclusion that the scorpion venom has become more toxic

Which of the following statements, if true, most seriously weakens the above conclusion?

(A) The scorpion population in the southwestern United States has remained steady since 1984.  Incorrect : The scorpion population being stable gives no further information about the scorpion venom or why more % people died

(B) There have been few innovations in the treatment of scorpion bites since 1984.   Incorrect : Few innovation does not explain why more % people died. If everything remained same same % people should have died. So this option also does not affect the argument

(C) Most people who suffer scorpion bites are inexperienced hikers who are unaware of the best methods to avoid coming in contact with a scorpion.   Incorrect : In this argument we are only concerned about why more % people died. Which population is getting bitten So this option also does not affect the argument at all

(D) Since 1984, people have learned that scorpion bites can be treated in the home as long as they are detected early.  Correct : If this option is true. Many people will treat at home and only serious cases may be treated at hospital. This trend can increase the death rate without the venom being more poisonous.

(E) People who survive one scorpion bite have a better than average chance of surviving a second bite.  Incorrect : This may be true but in no way does it affect the argument.

IMO D is correct

TarunKumar1234 · Answer

In 1984, almost 2 percent of humans who were admitted to hospital emergency rooms after suffering a scorpion bite in the southwestern United States died from the attack. Ten years later, this figure had jumped to 4 percent. Clearly, the venom of the scorpion has become much more toxic to humans.

So, we have to weaken the conclusion that the scorpion venom has become more toxic

Which of the following statements, if true, most seriously weakens the above conclusion?

(A) The scorpion population in the southwestern United States has remained steady since 1984. Incorrect : The scorpion population being stable gives no further information about the scorpion venom or why more % people died

(B) There have been few innovations in the treatment of scorpion bites since 1984. Incorrect : Few innovation does not explain why more % people died. If everything remained same same % people should have died. So this option also does not affect the argument

(C) Most people who suffer scorpion bites are inexperienced hikers who are unaware of the best methods to avoid coming in contact with a scorpion. Incorrect : In this argument we are only concerned about why more % people died. Which population is getting bitten So this option also does not affect the argument at all

(D) Since 1984, people have learned that scorpion bites can be treated in the home as long as they are detected early. Correct : If this option is true. Many people will treat at home and only serious cases may be treated at hospital. This trend can increase the death rate without the venom being more poisonous.

(E) People who survive one scorpion bite have a better than average chance of surviving a second bite. Incorrect : This may be true but in no way does it affect the argument.

IMO D is correct

mSKR · Answer

I marked C

because it maybe possible that more inexpereince hikers come in contact and this lead to increase of emergency admits

I rejected D: because it streenghten to me
-if it can be treated at home then there must be some serious problem that they still came to emergency

lets see final answer.

Hope to hear from moderators.

Thanks!

mSKR · Answer

Bunuel : please post official explanation

IanStewart  : kindly comment why not C . Is D not strengthening?

Thanks

IanStewart · Answer

To weaken the argument, we need some other reason the figure might have changed between 1984 and 1994. Answer D is the  only  answer that suggests anything has changed between 1984 and 1994, so it's the only answer that has any chance of being right -- we don't actually even need to think about why. But we can imagine why it could be right: maybe in 1994 many people try treating their scorpion bites at home, do a bad job of it, and end up in hospital too late. Or, and this is presumably the explanation the OA will provide, maybe the mild scorpion bites are the ones people treat at home (that's what D suggests when it talks about early detection), and in 1994 a greater proportion of the hospital cases are the late-detected serious cases. In either of those scenarios, scorpion venom is no more dangerous than before, but we'd expect those admitted to hospital to suffer serious consequences more often in 1994 than in 1984.

Gio96 · Answer

Hi Expert

I rejected choice D on the grounds that it does not provide any distinction between the 1984's cases and the 1994's cases since it says: "since 1984"

I correctly assumed that a weakener could be one that point out that lower # of people get into the hospital, but how choice D can helps us? If already in 1984 was present that circumstance, it does not provide us any new information in my opinion (since this phenomenon has already take place in 1984).

Regards.

IanStewart · Answer

The word "since" has a few definitions, but I think you may not be interpreting it the way the question intends. The first definition of "since" in the dictionary I checked (just the Google one) reads "in the intervening period between (the time mentioned) and the time under consideration, typically the present", and that's the meaning here: answer D talks about what has happened in the time between 1984 and now. I have the impression that you thought D described a situation that was already true in 1984, but that's not what "since" means here.

Gio96 · Answer

Hi, thank you for you reply

If as you mentioned answer D talks about what has happened in the time between 1984 and now, should we not consider 1984 is our analysis? Or in other words we can consider since similar to the constraint in Quant (such as the integers between 18 and 20 we should not consider 18 and 20 but only 19)?

Regards.

IanStewart · Answer

The phrase "since 1984" means "between 1984 and now", and the word "between" has the same meaning in Quant and in everyday use. If I say "there are three houses between my house and your house", then I'm really talking about five houses -- yours, mine, and the three in between. The "three houses" does not include my house and your house. So the phrase "since 1984" in this question should be read to mean "after 1984".

All of that said, this is a prep company question, and it isn't usually worth the effort to try to decode the language in prep company questions, because prep companies tend not to be very careful with language. I can't be completely certain, but I doubt this particular issue with "since" or "between" will ever be relevant in a real GMAT CR question.

rak08 · Answer

IanStewart 
why not E,

techinally then the venom is not stronger its just that the ones who are first bit are more vulnerable.

In 1984, almost 2 percent of humans who were admitted to hospital emer

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

In 1984, almost 2 percent of humans who were admitted to hospital emer

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