Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Apr 2212:30 AM EDT
-01:30 AM EDT
At one point, she believed GMAT wasn’t for her. After scoring 595, self-doubt crept in and she questioned her potential. But instead of quitting, she made the right strategic changes. The result? A remarkable comeback to 695. Check out how Saakshi did it.
Apr 1612:00 PM EDT
-11:59 PM EDT
You’re first to know: Save $200 on GMAT prep starting tomorrow, 4/13. Get 6 official practice tests and study with real questions. Be ready to save!
Apr 2301:30 AM EDT
-02:30 AM EDT
Struggling with GMAT Verbal as a non-native speaker? Harsh improved his score from 595 to 695 in just 45 days—and scored a 99 %ile in Verbal (V88)! Learn how smart strategy, clarity, and guided prep helped him gain 100 points.
Apr 2308:00 PM PDT
-09:00 PM PDT
Video explanations + diagnosis of 10 weakest areas + 150+ short videos + study plan!
Apr 2610:00 AM EDT
-11:00 AM EDT
The Target Test Prep course represents a quantum leap forward in GMAT preparation, a radical reinterpretation of the way that students should study. Try before you buy with a 5-day, full-access trial of the course for FREE!
Apr 2711:00 AM EDT
-12:00 PM EDT
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors
Apr 2808:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
19 Jul 2022, 01:30
Kudos
Bookmarks
E
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
35%
(medium)
Question Stats:
72% (01:48) correct
28%
(02:00)
wrong
based on 628
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
In World War I, only about 46 percent of the deaths suffered by the United States Armed Services were classified as battle deaths, that is, as directly caused by enemy action. The remaining deaths suffered by the United States Armed Services were classified as due to other factors, mainly disease. In World War II, 72 percent of the deaths suffered by the United States Armed Services were classified as battle deaths.
Which of the following, if true, best helps to explain the change in the percentage of battle deaths experienced by the United States Armed Services in World Wars I and II?
(A) The United States was fighting only one major enemy in World War I, but two major enemies in World War II.
(B) Compared to World War I, a greater percentage of deaths in World War II were battle deaths for the combined total of all armed services involved in each war.
(C) The widespread use of chemical weapons in World War I resulted in many battle deaths that were not caused directly by gunfire or explosives.
(D) There were more deaths in the United States as a result of disease in World War I than in World War II.
(E) Technological advances after World War I improved the ability of all armed services to reduce the lethality of disease and infection in World War II.
Which of the following, if true, best helps to explain the change in the percentage of battle deaths experienced by the United States Armed Services in World Wars I and II?
(A) The United States was fighting only one major enemy in World War I, but two major enemies in World War II.
(B) Compared to World War I, a greater percentage of deaths in World War II were battle deaths for the combined total of all armed services involved in each war.
(C) The widespread use of chemical weapons in World War I resulted in many battle deaths that were not caused directly by gunfire or explosives.
(D) There were more deaths in the United States as a result of disease in World War I than in World War II.
(E) Technological advances after World War I improved the ability of all armed services to reduce the lethality of disease and infection in World War II.
09 Sep 2024, 06:35
Kudos
Bookmarks
1. In World War I, 46% of U.S. Armed Services deaths were due to battle.
2. In World War II, 72% of U.S. Armed Services deaths were due to battle.
Question: What explains this increase in the percentage of battle deaths?
(A) The United States was fighting only one major enemy in World War I, but two major enemies in World War II.
This fact focuses on the number of enemies but doesn’t address why a higher percentage of deaths were caused by battle rather than disease or other factors. It doesn’t provide an explanation for the shift in the causes of deaths. Eliminate.
(B) Compared to World War I, a greater percentage of deaths in World War II were battle deaths for the combined total of all armed services involved in each war.
This merely restates the fact we are trying to explain: that a higher percentage of deaths in World War II were battle deaths. It doesn't provide an underlying reason for the change. Eliminate
(C) The widespread use of chemical weapons in World War I resulted in many battle deaths that were not caused directly by gunfire or explosives.
While this explains how battle deaths were caused in World War I, it doesn’t explain why the proportion of battle deaths increased in World War II. The use of chemical weapons doesn’t directly clarify the shift in the percentage of deaths. Eliminate.
(D) There were more deaths in the United States as a result of disease in World War I than in World War II.
This is highly relevant. If disease caused more deaths in World War I than in World War II, then the percentage of non-battle deaths (deaths not caused by enemy action) would have been higher in World War I. This would explain why battle deaths were a smaller percentage in World War I and a higher percentage in World War II. Keep this for now.
(E) Technological advances after World War I improved the ability of all armed services to reduce the lethality of disease and infection in World War II.
This provides a solid explanation for the decrease in deaths caused by disease in World War II. As fewer soldiers died from disease due to medical advances, a greater proportion of deaths would have been caused by battle, which would raise the percentage of battle deaths. This is a strong answer
Both (D) and (E) point to the idea that fewer deaths from disease in World War II led to an increase in the proportion of battle deaths. However, (E) provides a clearer, more direct explanation: medical and technological advances specifically reduced the number of disease-related deaths, which directly explains the shift in proportions. Where (D) doesn't do a great job is justifying why there were more deaths related to diseases in World War I than in World War II, a gap that E bridges quite well. (E) is the correct answer.
2. In World War II, 72% of U.S. Armed Services deaths were due to battle.
Question: What explains this increase in the percentage of battle deaths?
(A) The United States was fighting only one major enemy in World War I, but two major enemies in World War II.
This fact focuses on the number of enemies but doesn’t address why a higher percentage of deaths were caused by battle rather than disease or other factors. It doesn’t provide an explanation for the shift in the causes of deaths. Eliminate.
(B) Compared to World War I, a greater percentage of deaths in World War II were battle deaths for the combined total of all armed services involved in each war.
This merely restates the fact we are trying to explain: that a higher percentage of deaths in World War II were battle deaths. It doesn't provide an underlying reason for the change. Eliminate
(C) The widespread use of chemical weapons in World War I resulted in many battle deaths that were not caused directly by gunfire or explosives.
While this explains how battle deaths were caused in World War I, it doesn’t explain why the proportion of battle deaths increased in World War II. The use of chemical weapons doesn’t directly clarify the shift in the percentage of deaths. Eliminate.
(D) There were more deaths in the United States as a result of disease in World War I than in World War II.
This is highly relevant. If disease caused more deaths in World War I than in World War II, then the percentage of non-battle deaths (deaths not caused by enemy action) would have been higher in World War I. This would explain why battle deaths were a smaller percentage in World War I and a higher percentage in World War II. Keep this for now.
(E) Technological advances after World War I improved the ability of all armed services to reduce the lethality of disease and infection in World War II.
This provides a solid explanation for the decrease in deaths caused by disease in World War II. As fewer soldiers died from disease due to medical advances, a greater proportion of deaths would have been caused by battle, which would raise the percentage of battle deaths. This is a strong answer
Both (D) and (E) point to the idea that fewer deaths from disease in World War II led to an increase in the proportion of battle deaths. However, (E) provides a clearer, more direct explanation: medical and technological advances specifically reduced the number of disease-related deaths, which directly explains the shift in proportions. Where (D) doesn't do a great job is justifying why there were more deaths related to diseases in World War I than in World War II, a gap that E bridges quite well. (E) is the correct answer.
General Discussion
19 Jul 2022, 07:12
Kudos
Bookmarks
Only E explains the discrepancies in the argument. it was the reason for less percentage of death caused by diseases or other factors in world war 2
all other choice cant explain this discrepancies
so, answer E
all other choice cant explain this discrepancies
so, answer E
