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.
Nov 2007:30 AM PST
-08:30 AM PST
Learn what truly sets the UC Riverside MBA apart and how it helps in your professional growth
Nov 2001:30 PM EST
-02:30 PM IST
Learn how Kamakshi achieved a GMAT 675 with an impressive 96th %ile in Data Insights. Discover the unique methods and exam strategies that helped her excel in DI along with other sections for a balanced and high score.
Nov 2206:30 AM PST
-08:30 AM PST
Let’s dive deep into advanced CR to ace GMAT Focus! Join this webinar to unlock the secrets to conquering Boldface and Paradox questions with expert insights and strategies. Elevate your skills and boost your GMAT Verbal Score now!
Nov 2211:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Do RC/MSR passages scare you? e-GMAT is conducting a masterclass to help you learn – Learn effective reading strategies Tackle difficult RC & MSR with confidence Excel in timed test environment- Nov 23
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease. 
Nov 2407:00 PM PST
-08:00 PM PST
Full-length FE mock with insightful analytics, weakness diagnosis, and video explanations!
Nov 2510:00 AM EST
-11:00 AM EST
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.
21 May 2019, 15:14
Kudos
Bookmarks
Two genes BRCA1 and BRCA2 are linked to hereditary breast cancer. Therefore in order to decrease the annual number of mammogram tests administered across a population and to more accurately assess a woman's individual risk of breast cancer, all women should be tested for these genes.
Notes
genes <-> hereditary cancer
(C) if W test —> lower # mamm. AND better assess risk
Analysis
Basically the argument is that since 2 genes are linked, all women should get tested. If all get tested, then mammograms will decrease and risk is better assessed. What does the author assume? That getting tested will actually lower people wanting to get mammograms…. since the knowledge of risk is more accurate. It’s like: OK, I know this test is almost perfect – why bother doing a mammogram?
Which of the following is the assumption?
A. Some women who are tested for the two genes will subsequently undergo mammograms on a less frequent basis than they used to.
Sounds like our pre-think. As a negation check: some of the women tested will not undergo mammograms less frequently. Or some will go more frequently.
B. The majority of breast cancer patients have no family history of the disease.
If the majority have no history, the test would have low effect on testing. This also would weaken the argument.
C. Researchers may have identified a third breast cancer gene that is linked with hereditary breast cancer.
Knowing a third gene exists doesn’t help make our argument less hole-y.
D. Women who have these genes have an 90% chance of getting breast cancer while women who don't have these genes have only a 20% chance of getting breast cancer.
I was tricked by this but if we think about this even if women with the genes have a 90% chance of getting cancer, they might still undergo the mammogram testing for a second opinion perhaps to know for sure. But also, it’s a hard statement to negate. What if the chance was only 30% or as high as 95%, would either % DEFINITELY affect # of mammogram tests administered? Not necessarily. The % are too precise to be assumptions.
E. The presence of BRCA1 and BRCA 2 can explain up to to 50% of hereditary cases.
This isn’t an assumption. Just because gene presence DOES explain up to 50% of cases....doesn't necessarily mean it will lower need for mammogram testing. In the negation world: What if it explains 10% only? What if it explains more than 50%? Like 99% of cases? Does it help increase accuracy of testing? Not necessarily.
Notes
genes <-> hereditary cancer
(C) if W test —> lower # mamm. AND better assess risk
Analysis
Basically the argument is that since 2 genes are linked, all women should get tested. If all get tested, then mammograms will decrease and risk is better assessed. What does the author assume? That getting tested will actually lower people wanting to get mammograms…. since the knowledge of risk is more accurate. It’s like: OK, I know this test is almost perfect – why bother doing a mammogram?
Which of the following is the assumption?
A. Some women who are tested for the two genes will subsequently undergo mammograms on a less frequent basis than they used to.
Sounds like our pre-think. As a negation check: some of the women tested will not undergo mammograms less frequently. Or some will go more frequently.
B. The majority of breast cancer patients have no family history of the disease.
If the majority have no history, the test would have low effect on testing. This also would weaken the argument.
C. Researchers may have identified a third breast cancer gene that is linked with hereditary breast cancer.
Knowing a third gene exists doesn’t help make our argument less hole-y.
D. Women who have these genes have an 90% chance of getting breast cancer while women who don't have these genes have only a 20% chance of getting breast cancer.
I was tricked by this but if we think about this even if women with the genes have a 90% chance of getting cancer, they might still undergo the mammogram testing for a second opinion perhaps to know for sure. But also, it’s a hard statement to negate. What if the chance was only 30% or as high as 95%, would either % DEFINITELY affect # of mammogram tests administered? Not necessarily. The % are too precise to be assumptions.
E. The presence of BRCA1 and BRCA 2 can explain up to to 50% of hereditary cases.
This isn’t an assumption. Just because gene presence DOES explain up to 50% of cases....doesn't necessarily mean it will lower need for mammogram testing. In the negation world: What if it explains 10% only? What if it explains more than 50%? Like 99% of cases? Does it help increase accuracy of testing? Not necessarily.
chrtpmdr
Current Student
Joined: 24 Jul 2019
Last visit: 05 Oct 2022
Posts: 202
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 161
Schools: HSG MBF "23 (A) UniBocconi MFin "23 (A)
GMAT 1: 730 Q46 V45
GPA: 3.9
07 Jun 2020, 01:11
Kudos
Bookmarks
A. Some women who are tested for the two genes will subsequently undergo mammograms on a less frequent basis than they used to.
Isn't that a very weak assumption?
Try to negate it "Some women who are tested ... will subsequently undergo mannograms STILL on a frequent basis"
It's easy to negate that statement - if some would be flipped to most we would have a problem but you could totally decrease the mannogram visits even when "some women" still decide to go for a mannogram. As long as the majority of women who were tested for the new genes decide that they from now will need mannograms less frequent.
Isn't that a very weak assumption?
Try to negate it "Some women who are tested ... will subsequently undergo mannograms STILL on a frequent basis"
It's easy to negate that statement - if some would be flipped to most we would have a problem but you could totally decrease the mannogram visits even when "some women" still decide to go for a mannogram. As long as the majority of women who were tested for the new genes decide that they from now will need mannograms less frequent.
20 Jan 2021, 22:29
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hello experts - GMATNinja GMATNinjaTwo IanStewart nightblade354 mira93 VeritasKarishma
Just to test whether my critical reasoning is accurate regarding option D specifically
-- Had 90 % been instead 100 %
and
-- Had 20 % been instead 0 %
Would in that case, with my new numbers -- would option D with these new %'s in that case have been an assumption ?
I still think it would not be an assumption because it's quite possible that ALL the women who have been tested for these two genes ALSO may still want a second opinion with mammograms as well.
It's quite possible that the women being tested for these 2 genes are ALL asking for a second opinion (second opinion via mammogram testing) because perhaps the test for these two genes may bring up false positives or false negatives and a 2nd check may be needed.
Thoughts ?
Just to test whether my critical reasoning is accurate regarding option D specifically
-- Had 90 % been instead 100 %
and
-- Had 20 % been instead 0 %
Would in that case, with my new numbers -- would option D with these new %'s in that case have been an assumption ?
I still think it would not be an assumption because it's quite possible that ALL the women who have been tested for these two genes ALSO may still want a second opinion with mammograms as well.
It's quite possible that the women being tested for these 2 genes are ALL asking for a second opinion (second opinion via mammogram testing) because perhaps the test for these two genes may bring up false positives or false negatives and a 2nd check may be needed.
Thoughts ?
