Human exposure to even low levels of nuclear radiation

Question

Human exposure to even low levels of nuclear radiation dramatically increases the likelihood of contracting some form of cancer. According to a research study involving a town near a former nuclear testing site, no person who resided in the tow during the testing - which occurred more than sixty years ago - and who was under the age of 10 during the testing lived beyond 50 years of age. However, some of the town's former residents who are now over 50 years old are cancer survivors but resided in the town during the nuclear testing.

If the information provided is true, which of the following must on the basis of it also be true about the town that is the subject of the research study?

If the information provided is true, which of the following must on the basis of it also be true about the town that is the subject of the research study?

(A) Some people who resided in the town during the nuclear testing do not remember the testing.

(B) The cancers contracted by the town's cancer survivors were to caused by exposure to nuclear radiation.

(C) Some of the town's former residents living today were over 10 years of age during the nuclear testing

(D) The nuclear testing resulted in the emission of lower levels of radiation than initially believed.

(E) Some of the town's residents died before turning 50 years of age due to causes other than cancer.

IanStewart · Answer

Where's the OA from? The answer can't be B. The question says that everyone who was under the age of 10 during the testing hasn't survived. So if there were survivors, as we learn later in the question, they must have been over 10 years old at the time of the testing. That's what answer C says.

prakhag · Answer

Question's is from Princeton review tests. OE also gives the same explanation as yours but OA is given as B!! (that's why the heading "Confusing OA":) ).

However, looking at the question more closely, the passage states that the residents were aged UNDER 10 years at the time of these tests, so for any survivors they have to be ATLEAST 10 years old, i.e. 10 years or more. Option C states that former residents were OVER 10 years old. So, are we not couting out residents who will be exactly 10 year old at the time of nuclear tests or am I taking it too far? I believe in must be true questions all the aspects should conform with the premise. Is it possible to eliminate option C on basis of this? Please advise.

IanStewart · Answer

That is taking it a bit too far, I'd say, but strictly speaking you're certainly right - the survivors, in theory, could *all* have been exactly 10 years old at the time of the tests. If that were the case, then C is not true.

It's clear that C is intended to be the right answer, but it's not an official question; it's a prep company question. The 'technicality' you've pointed out here, that everyone might have been exactly 10 years old, is not the kind of thing you'd need to worry about on a real GMAT question. The wording of official questions is always absolutely precise. Prep companies often don't hold their questions to such a high editorial standard, unfortunately.

ahsanmalik12 · Answer

If the information provided is true, which of the following must on the basis of it also be true about the town that is the subject of the research study?

this question means to infer and sniff through the lines to search for the answer..
C) is too direct straight to be asked for like this...

IanStewart · Answer

No, that's not the case. Very often, the correct answer to real CR questions of this type simply restates information in the passage, but in different words. Sometimes you need to reach some logical conclusion from the data given, but not always.

sidhu09 · Answer

(A) Some people who resided in the town during the nuclear testing do not remember the testing.  - Remembering the incident has nothing to do with the premise - Irrelevant - Incorrect 
(B) The cancers contracted by the town's cancer survivors were to caused by exposure to nuclear radiation.  - Not necessarily. They might have contracted cancer due to reasons other than nuclear radiation as well - Incorrect 
(C) Some of the town's former residents living today were over 10 years of age during the nuclear testing  - Definitely yes. People who were below the age of 10 during the test did not live beyond the age of 50. Where as some people who survived cancer have lived beyond 50. This means that exposure to radiation has more deadly effect on people if they are young, more the poeple are young, more is the affect of the radiation - Correct 
(D) The nuclear testing resulted in the emission of lower levels of radiation than initially believed.  - Irrelevant - Incorrect 
(E) Some of the town's residents died before turning 50 years of age due to causes other than cancer.  - Cannot be said for sure. No evidence of such cases has been provided in the passage - Incorrect

KrishnakumarKA1 · Answer

(A) Some people who resided in the town during the nuclear testing do not remember the testing.(  Wrong Answer  : This is not supported by facts given)

(B) The cancers contracted by the town's cancer survivors were to caused by exposure to nuclear radiation.(  Wrong Answer  : there is no evidence present in the argument to support this type of a conclusion.)

(C) Some of the town's former residents living today were over 10 years of age during the nuclear testing(  Right answer  : The lines, “some of the town’s …….50 years of age” indicates this)

(D) The nuclear testing resulted in the emission of lower levels of radiation than initially believed.(  Wrong Answer  : this is not supported by facts given)

(E) Some of the town's residents died before turning 50 years of age due to causes other than cancer.(  Wrong Answer  : This is not supported by facts given)

debtanuB · Answer

The highlighted texts say we are talking about a time that is 50 years back from now & if some people were below 10 years during the test they must have survived >50years and now its already 50+years. Option C says exactly that.

Jeeva1989 · Answer

I chose (B) as the answer and I am unable to understand how (C) is the right answer. Can someone please help.

LordStark · Answer

why this is wrong: No where it is given that these people got cancer because of exposure to nuclear radiation. Yes they were present during the nuclear testing. In the first sentence, it says exposure increase LIKELIHOOD, it does not say that it cancer will happen for sure.

There were only two group of residents during the testing. less than 10 and more than 10 years old. 
The passage says less then 10 years old did not survive. About the second group, the passage clearly says "However, some of the town's former residents who are now over 50 years old are cancer survivors but resided in the town during the nuclear testing." This must be the second group of residents who were more than 10 years old at that time.

I hope it helps.

kanakdaga · Answer

Human exposure to even low levels of nuclear radiation dramatically increases the likelihood of contracting some form of cancer. According to a research study involving a town near a former nuclear testing site, no person who resided in the tow during the testing - which occurred more than sixty years ago - and who was under the age of 10 during the testing lived beyond 50 years of age. However, some of the town's former residents who are now over 50 years old are cancer survivors but resided in the town during the nuclear testing.

If the information provided is true, which of the following must on the basis of it also be true about the town that is the subject of the research study?

If the information provided is true, which of the following must on the basis of it also be true about the town that is the subject of the research study?

(A) Some people who resided in the town during the nuclear testing do not remember the testing.  Irrelevant

(B) The cancers contracted by the town's cancer survivors were to caused by exposure to nuclear radiation. No substantial evidence for this claim.

(C) Some of the town's former residents living today were over 10 years of age during the nuclear testing. If some lived beyond 50, lets alum that the person is 72. then the person was above 10 years of age sixty years ago. CORRECT.

(D) The nuclear testing resulted in the emission of lower levels of radiation than initially believed. Irrelevant

(E) Some of the town's residents died before turning 50 years of age due to causes other than cancer. No substantial proof.

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.

Human exposure to even low levels of nuclear radiation

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

Human exposure to even low levels of nuclear radiation

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