In a certain state, the rate at which inhabitants of City X contract

Question

In a certain state, the rate at which inhabitants of City X contract a certain disease is significantly lower than the rate at which inhabitants of City Y contract the disease. So if a couple originally from City Y relocates to City X and raises a family there, their children will be significantly less likely to contract this disease than they would have been if the
family had remained in City Y.

Which of the following statements, if true, would most significantly strengthen the conclusion drawn in the passage?

A. The rate at which inhabitants of City X contract the disease will increase as the overall population of City X increases.

B. In contrast to City Y, City X is characterized by an abundance of environmental factors that tend to inhibit the occurrence of the disease.

C. 23% of those inhabitants of City Y who move to City X live beyond the average life span of native inhabitants of City X.

D. Over the last 2 decades, the incidence of the disease has decreased in City Y but has remained unchanged in City X.

E. Studies indicate that the incidence of the disease among inhabitants of City X who move to City Y is roughly equal to that of inhabitants of City X who remain in CityX.

This is a  CR Butler Question

Check the links to other Butler Projects:
 
  Data Sufficiency Butler  
  Problem Solving Butler  
  Reading Comprehension Butler

FirstMouse · Answer

A: Says disease in X may increase with population → weakens the conclusion.
B: X has environmental factors that prevent the disease → directly explains why moving to X lowers the children's risk.
C: Living longer does not show that X reduces disease risk.
D: Different disease trends over time don't explain why moving to X would help.
E: E says people from X who move to Y have a disease rate similar to people who remain in X.
That actually suggests that  moving to Y doesn't make much difference .
So it doesn't strongly support the idea that the environment of the city determines the disease rate.

Correct Answer- B

suntprovident · Answer

Conclusion: So, if a couple from City Y relocates to City X and raises a family there, their children will be significantly less likely to contract the disease than if they had stayed in City Y.

For this conclusion to hold, the low disease rate in City X must be driven by environmental/location-based factors (nurture/place) rather than genetic/inherent factors unique to native residents of City X (nature). If the native residents of City X are simply genetically immune, moving a family from City Y to City X will not protect their children.

Answer choice B does exactly that

Vivek1707 · Answer

A. If X's disease rate rises as its population increases, moving to X may not necessarily reduce the children's risk. Eliminate
B. This directly supports the environmental explanation: X has environmental factors that inhibit the disease, unlike Y. So when the Y family moves to X, their children would be exposed to those protective factors. That makes the conclusion much more plausible. Correct.
C. Living longer has nothing directly to do with the disease in question. Eliminate
D. This only describes how the disease rate changed over time. It doesn't establish why X currently has a lower rate.
E. This actually points toward the people themselves being responsible. If X residents keep the same low disease rate even after moving to Y, then their lower risk may be due to some inherent/genetic characteristic rather than X's environment. That weakens the conclusion. Eliminate

Bunuel · Answer

KAPLAN OFFICIAL EXPLANATION:

B

This question picks up on the same stimulus seen in Question 39. The key assumption is that environmental factors in City X are responsible for the low incidence of the disease in that city. To strengthen the argument, we need to find the choice that confirms this assumption. And that is what (B) does.

(A) suggests that an increase in population will increase the rate of the disease. This would suggest that newcomers would be more, not less, likely to contract the disease. (C) is too general, speaking of lifespan and not the specific disease in question. (D) is irrelevant; the fact remains that the incidence in City Y is still significantly higher than in City X. (E) would weaken the argument. If City X inhabitants show the same resistance to the disease even in City Y, the reason for their immunity must be inherent-probably genetic, not environmental.

In a certain state, the rate at which inhabitants of City X contract

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 a certain state, the rate at which inhabitants of City X contract

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

In a certain state, the rate at which inhabitants of City X contract