Last visit was: 20 Jun 2024, 01:53 It is currently 20 Jun 2024, 01:53
Toolkit
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

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

# Veritas Prep CR Forum Expert - Karishma - Ask Me Anything about CR

SORT BY:
Tags:

Show Tags
Hide Tags
Tutor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 14968
Own Kudos [?]: 66056 [1]
Given Kudos: 435
Location: Pune, India
Intern
Joined: 02 Aug 2019
Posts: 42
Own Kudos [?]: 22 [0]
Given Kudos: 165
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Strategy
Schools: ISB '24 (A)
GMAT 1: 680 Q50 V31
WE:Manufacturing and Production (Manufacturing)
ISB & IIM Moderator
Joined: 17 Mar 2021
Posts: 232
Own Kudos [?]: 121 [0]
Given Kudos: 123
Location: India
GMAT 1: 660 Q44 V36
GPA: 3.5
Tutor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 14968
Own Kudos [?]: 66056 [0]
Given Kudos: 435
Location: Pune, India
Vatsal7794 wrote:
Hi

Can we still post our doubts in this thread?

Thanks

Certainly, but I request you to tag me.
Intern
Joined: 17 Jan 2018
Posts: 30
Own Kudos [?]: 10 [0]
Given Kudos: 808
Location: India
Hey KarishmaB, many thanks for doing this. Am unable to open this link that you've shared in this forum:

https://gmatclub.com/forum/physician-go ... l#p2641097

Hi VeritasKarishma / experts - how would you eliminate C and D specifically in this

The OA is E

Thank you for everything !
===================

Physician: Goliath Pharmaceutical Company has claimed that the recent increase in the number of diagnosed cases of Disease X shows that the disease is increasing in virulence. This is a questionable argument, just as it would be incorrect to claim that our increased success rate in treating patients with Disease X is due to the disease becoming less virulent. The real cause of both increases is a newly introduced screening process that reduces misdiagnoses of patients infected with the Disease X pathogen.

The Physician’s statements, if accurate, provide the most support for which of the following as a conclusion?

(A) The new screening procedure is the reason that more people are requesting to be tested for Disease X.
(B) It is not possible to determine that a patient has Disease X without using the new screening process.
(C) The increase in diagnosed cases of Disease X is proportional to the increase in the number of clinics utilizing the new screening procedure.
(D) The new screening process occasionally diagnoses patients with Disease X when they are actually suffering from another illness.
(E) The increase in the number of diagnosed cases of Disease X is not due to an increase in the disease’s virulence.
VP
Joined: 15 Dec 2016
Posts: 1361
Own Kudos [?]: 219 [0]
Given Kudos: 188
^^KarishmaB - for the above Goliath Pharmaceutical question:

In (C), what does "proportionally" mean ? i thought "proportionally" meant --

The more hospitals use the "newly introduced screening process" -- faster the rate of the INCREASE in the number of diagnosed cases.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On the other hand, i didnt think (OA: E) was an inference (a fact)

All the passage says is that the claim (claim marked in yellow specifically) is Questionable.

Questionable implies, perhaps true / perhaps false - no one is sure.

(E) on the other hand is claiming with 100 % surety that INCREASED VIRULENCE is NOT the cause for recent increase in the number of diagnosed cases of Disease X

Quote:

Physician: Goliath Pharmaceutical Company has claimed that the recent increase in the number of diagnosed cases of Disease X shows that the disease is increasing in virulence. This is a questionable argument, just as it would be incorrect to claim that our increased success rate in treating patients with Disease X is due to the disease becoming less virulent. The real cause of both increases is a newly introduced screening process that reduces misdiagnoses of patients infected with the Disease X pathogen.

The Physician’s statements, if accurate, provide the most support for which of the following as a conclusion?
(A) The new screening procedure is the reason that more people are requesting to be tested for Disease X.
(B) It is not possible to determine that a patient has Disease X without using the new screening process.
(C) The increase in diagnosed cases of Disease X is proportional to the increase in the number of clinics utilizing the new screening procedure.
(D) The new screening process occasionally diagnoses patients with Disease X when they are actually suffering fro
(E) The increase in the number of diagnosed cases of Disease X is not due to an increase in the disease’s virulence.
Tutor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 14968
Own Kudos [?]: 66056 [0]
Given Kudos: 435
Location: Pune, India
rahulbiitk wrote:
Hey KarishmaB, many thanks for doing this. Am unable to open this link that you've shared in this forum:

https://gmatclub.com/forum/physician-go ... l#p2641097

Hi VeritasKarishma / experts - how would you eliminate C and D specifically in this

The OA is E

Thank you for everything !
===================

Physician: Goliath Pharmaceutical Company has claimed that the recent increase in the number of diagnosed cases of Disease X shows that the disease is increasing in virulence. This is a questionable argument, just as it would be incorrect to claim that our increased success rate in treating patients with Disease X is due to the disease becoming less virulent. The real cause of both increases is a newly introduced screening process that reduces misdiagnoses of patients infected with the Disease X pathogen.

The Physician’s statements, if accurate, provide the most support for which of the following as a conclusion?

(A) The new screening procedure is the reason that more people are requesting to be tested for Disease X.
(B) It is not possible to determine that a patient has Disease X without using the new screening process.
(C) The increase in diagnosed cases of Disease X is proportional to the increase in the number of clinics utilizing the new screening procedure.
(D) The new screening process occasionally diagnoses patients with Disease X when they are actually suffering from another illness.
(E) The increase in the number of diagnosed cases of Disease X is not due to an increase in the disease’s virulence.

GPC claims that increase in cases shows increased virulence. This is not true.
If we were to claim that increased success in treating is due to decrease in virulence, that would also not be true.
The real reason for both is a new technique that reduces misdiagnosis.

So the author is claiming that prior to the new tech, there used to be misdiagnosis. So people with disease X did not get diagnosed. Now they do. So we see more diagnoses of disease X. Some who did not have disease X probably got diagnosed with it. Now they don't. So we are seeing an increased success in treating. The point is that if all who have disease X get diagnosed, more diagnoses will result. If those who do not have disease X do not get diagnosed with it, better accuracy in treatment will be the result (Medicine of disease X will work only if a person does have disease X).

If this is true, which option must be true?

(C) The increase in diagnosed cases of Disease X is proportional to the increase in the number of clinics utilizing the new screening procedure.

Not necessary. Can we say if 20% more clinics use the new process, 20% more cases will be diagnosed? No. We don't know how disease X is geographically distributed. 1 clinic in the right location could make a huge difference in the number of people testing positive for disease X etc.

(D) The new screening process occasionally diagnoses patients with Disease X when they are actually suffering from another illness.

This cannot be the conclusion. It is given that it reduces misdiagnoses. We don't know what kind of misdiagnoses it is still capable of, if at all.
Does it give even one false positive result? We don't know. Perhaps it only gives false negatives.

(E) The increase in the number of diagnosed cases of Disease X is not due to an increase in the disease’s virulence.

Yes, this is what the author is claiming. This is the conclusion. He says that increase in number of cases is not due to increase in virulence.

Tutor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 14968
Own Kudos [?]: 66056 [0]
Given Kudos: 435
Location: Pune, India
jabhatta2 wrote:
^^KarishmaB - for the above Goliath Pharmaceutical question:

In (C), what does "proportionally" mean ? i thought "proportionally" meant --

The more hospitals use the "newly introduced screening process" -- faster the rate of the INCREASE in the number of diagnosed cases.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On the other hand, i didnt think (OA: E) was an inference (a fact)

All the passage says is that the claim (claim marked in yellow specifically) is Questionable.

Questionable implies, perhaps true / perhaps false - no one is sure.

(E) on the other hand is claiming with 100 % surety that INCREASED VIRULENCE is NOT the cause for recent increase in the number of diagnosed cases of Disease X

Quote:

Physician: Goliath Pharmaceutical Company has claimed that the recent increase in the number of diagnosed cases of Disease X shows that the disease is increasing in virulence. This is a questionable argument, just as it would be incorrect to claim that our increased success rate in treating patients with Disease X is due to the disease becoming less virulent. The real cause of both increases is a newly introduced screening process that reduces misdiagnoses of patients infected with the Disease X pathogen.

The Physician’s statements, if accurate, provide the most support for which of the following as a conclusion?
(A) The new screening procedure is the reason that more people are requesting to be tested for Disease X.
(B) It is not possible to determine that a patient has Disease X without using the new screening process.
(C) The increase in diagnosed cases of Disease X is proportional to the increase in the number of clinics utilizing the new screening procedure.
(D) The new screening process occasionally diagnoses patients with Disease X when they are actually suffering fro
(E) The increase in the number of diagnosed cases of Disease X is not due to an increase in the disease’s virulence.

We have to take it to be true that real cause of both increases is something else. Then virulence is not the reason.
Besides, 'questionable' in this sense means 'incorrect.'
Your logic is questionable means it is not correct.
Besides, the author further says '... just as it would be incorrect to claim ...' to show that both things are incorrect.
VP
Joined: 15 Dec 2016
Posts: 1361
Own Kudos [?]: 219 [0]
Given Kudos: 188
KarishmaB wrote:
We have to take it to be true that real cause of both increases is something else. Then virulence is not the reason.
Besides, 'questionable' in this sense means 'incorrect.'
Your logic is questionable means it is not correct.
Besides, the author further says '... just as it would be incorrect to claim ...' to show that both things are incorrect.

Hi KarishmaB -

Lets say (C) was saying this instead :

Quote:
(C original) The increase in diagnosed cases of Disease X is proportional to the increase in the number of clinics utilizing the new screening procedure.
(C variant) The increase in diagnosed cases of Disease X is proportional to the increase in the number of clinics utilizing the new screening procedure number of new screening procedures.

Just curious, what your thought are on this (C-variant) ?

I think this (C-variant) is inferable.
Tutor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 14968
Own Kudos [?]: 66056 [0]
Given Kudos: 435
Location: Pune, India
jabhatta2 wrote:
KarishmaB wrote:
We have to take it to be true that real cause of both increases is something else. Then virulence is not the reason.
Besides, 'questionable' in this sense means 'incorrect.'
Your logic is questionable means it is not correct.
Besides, the author further says '... just as it would be incorrect to claim ...' to show that both things are incorrect.

Hi KarishmaB -

Lets say (C) was saying this instead :

Quote:
(C original) The increase in diagnosed cases of Disease X is proportional to the increase in the number of clinics utilizing the new screening procedure.
(C variant) The increase in diagnosed cases of Disease X is proportional to the increase in the number of clinics utilizing the new screening procedure number of new screening procedures.

Just curious, what your thought are on this (C-variant) ?

I think this (C-variant) is inferable.

Proportional means if one doubles the other doubles too. It shows direct variation.
When one increases, other increase too is direct relation, not proportional.
VP
Joined: 15 Dec 2016
Posts: 1361
Own Kudos [?]: 219 [0]
Given Kudos: 188
KarishmaB wrote:

Proportional means if one doubles the other doubles too. It shows direct variation.
When one increases, other increase too is direct relation, not proportional.

Thanks so much KarishmaB.

Do you think (C-variant) is inferabble ? I think it is.

Quote:
(C original) The increase in diagnosed cases of Disease X is proportional to the increase in the number of clinics utilizing the new screening procedure.
(C variant) The increase in diagnosed cases of Disease X is proportional to the increase in the number of clinics utilizing the new screening procedure number of new screening procedures.

If number of new screening procedures have increased by 20 % -- the number of diagnosed cases of Disease X will also increase by 20 % surely.

I think that is an inference, one could make.
Tutor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 14968
Own Kudos [?]: 66056 [0]
Given Kudos: 435
Location: Pune, India
jabhatta2 wrote:
KarishmaB wrote:

Proportional means if one doubles the other doubles too. It shows direct variation.
When one increases, other increase too is direct relation, not proportional.

Thanks so much KarishmaB.

Do you think (C-variant) is inferabble ? I think it is.

Quote:
(C original) The increase in diagnosed cases of Disease X is proportional to the increase in the number of clinics utilizing the new screening procedure.
(C variant) The increase in diagnosed cases of Disease X is proportional to the increase in the number of clinics utilizing the new screening procedure number of new screening procedures.

If number of new screening procedures have increased by 20 % -- the number of diagnosed cases of Disease X will also increase by 20 % surely.

I think that is an inference, one could make.

Not correct. Neither is there proportionality between number of procedures done and number of diagnosed cases nor is it there between no of clinics and number of diagnosed cases (this is what option (C) says).
Say there are 5 clinics and 100 cases diagnosed last year. If this year one more clinic starts using the new technique, does it mean we will see 120 diagnosed cases? No. We may see 200 diagnosed cases if the clinic opened in an area where the disease is widespread. We may see 100 cases only if the new clinic was opened in an area with no cases. We may see 200 cases if the new clinic conducted many tests in the year. We may see 100 cases only if the new clinic conducted very few tests etc. There are infinite scenarios possible.
VP
Joined: 15 Dec 2016
Posts: 1361
Own Kudos [?]: 219 [0]
Given Kudos: 188
KarishmaB wrote:
jabhatta2 wrote:
KarishmaB wrote:

Proportional means if one doubles the other doubles too. It shows direct variation.
When one increases, other increase too is direct relation, not proportional.

Thanks so much KarishmaB.

Do you think (C-variant) is inferabble ? I think it is.

Quote:
(C original) The increase in diagnosed cases of Disease X is proportional to the increase in the number of clinics utilizing the new screening procedure.
(C variant) The increase in diagnosed cases of Disease X is proportional to the increase in the number of clinics utilizing the new screening procedure number of new screening procedures.

If number of new screening procedures have increased by 20 % -- the number of diagnosed cases of Disease X will also increase by 20 % surely.

I think that is an inference, one could make.

Not correct. Neither is there proportionality between number of procedures done and number of diagnosed cases nor is it there between no of clinics and number of diagnosed cases (this is what option (C) says).
Say there are 5 clinics and 100 cases diagnosed last year. If this year one more clinic starts using the new technique, does it mean we will see 120 diagnosed cases? No. We may see 200 diagnosed cases if the clinic opened in an area where the disease is widespread. We may see 100 cases only if the new clinic was opened in an area with no cases. We may see 200 cases if the new clinic conducted many tests in the year. We may see 100 cases only if the new clinic conducted very few tests etc. There are infinite scenarios possible.

Hi KarishmaB – thank you for your response.

I agree that (C-original) is not inferable. I thought however – we could infer (C-Variant)

There should be proportionality between number of new screening procedures done and number of diagnosed cases

Reason

• If country wide – the number of new screening procedures goes up by 20 %
• The number of diagnosed cases will go up by 20 % as well

Do you think this is a plausible scenario AGAINST (C-variant) ?

• The number of new screening procedures went up by 20 %.
• The location of the testing was done in a remote village
• In the village, no one had disease X
• Thus the new screening procedures went up by 20 % but the number of diagnoses cases was still 0 % as no one in the remote village had Disease X to begin with
Tutor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 14968
Own Kudos [?]: 66056 [0]
Given Kudos: 435
Location: Pune, India
jabhatta2 wrote:

Do you think this is a plausible scenario AGAINST (C-variant) ?

• The number of new screening procedures went up by 20 %.
• The location of the testing was done in a remote village
• In the village, no one had disease X
• Thus the new screening procedures went up by 20 % but the number of diagnoses cases was still 0 % as no one in the remote village had Disease X to begin with

Yes. In any case, nothing says that the increase must be 20%. What if 20% more tests led to only 5% more cases? etc. There is no direct variation between them.
Intern
Joined: 02 Aug 2022
Posts: 40
Own Kudos [?]: 3 [1]
Given Kudos: 277
Location: India
1
Kudos
KarishmaB
bb
Hi Experts, I am facing issue with CR questions and planning to take GMAT in another 6 days, that is on 18 or 19 March 2023.
Please let me know what can be done to improve upon Evaluate, Goal-Plan, conversation type and paradox questions. The main problem I am facing here is that: In evaluate and Goal Plan ques, it sometimes attack the premise/plan and sometimes it attacks the Conclusion/Goal. What are we supposed to attack in these kinds of questions?

For Paradox ques, shall I always state the paradox on scratch pad (like conc in weaken/strengthen) and attack that?

Main Problems are:

1. Most of the times, I am left with two options one of which is correct and I end up marking wrong one b'coz correct one doesn't seem fully convincing or I overthink making up illogical reasons in my mind. or sometimes, I eliminate the correct ans right away without giving it much thought.
2. I am making same mistakes again and again(like I know some standard problem types and repeat mistakes in them, like a group is talked about and then ans talks about division within the grp), my mind starts wandering from one option to another and end up re-reading some times.
3. I read half option and leave it midway(to save time) if I feel that is irrelevant and some times that turns out to be correct answer(won't be apparent in first look).
4. Also, almost each and every ques type in CR is taking me between 2-2.5 mins.
5. I eventually realize the mistake while analyzing but in the exam mode that is not improving despite realization and I am not able to fill that 10 ques gap in verbal b'coz of CR.

I am clear that we are supposed to attack conclusion in Strengthen weaken, but how should one go about above questions list.
Please let me know what can be done to improve on these ques types in 5 days time?
Tutor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 14968
Own Kudos [?]: 66056 [2]
Given Kudos: 435
Location: Pune, India
2
Kudos
Alka10 wrote:
KarishmaB
bb
Hi Experts, I am facing issue with CR questions and planning to take GMAT in another 6 days, that is on 18 or 19 March 2023.
Please let me know what can be done to improve upon Evaluate, Goal-Plan, conversation type and paradox questions. The main problem I am facing here is that: In evaluate and Goal Plan ques, it sometimes attack the premise/plan and sometimes it attacks the Conclusion/Goal. What are we supposed to attack in these kinds of questions?

We focus on the conclusion of the argument/aim of the plan.
The question stem tells you exactly what you need to focus on. Read it very carefully.
e.g. What will help you evaluate whether A will happen? We need to focus on whether A will happen, no matter what else is given in the argument.

If premises (facts) are given to us, we need to take them to be true.
If the conclusion is based on a study, we can question the validity of the study, the presence of various biases, the sample validity etc.

Alka10 wrote:
For Paradox ques, shall I always state the paradox on scratch pad (like conc in weaken/strengthen) and attack that?

You do need to exactly identify the paradox - whether you write it on the scratch pad or not is irrelevant.
A is what I expected but B is taking place. Why? Now look for the option that answers why.

Alka10 wrote:
Main Problems are:

1. Most of the times, I am left with two options one of which is correct and I end up marking wrong one b'coz correct one doesn't seem fully convincing or I overthink making up illogical reasons in my mind. or sometimes, I eliminate the correct ans right away without giving it much thought.
2. I am making same mistakes again and again(like I know some standard problem types and repeat mistakes in them, like a group is talked about and then ans talks about division within the grp), my mind starts wandering from one option to another and end up re-reading some times.
3. I read half option and leave it midway(to save time) if I feel that is irrelevant and some times that turns out to be correct answer(won't be apparent in first look).
4. Also, almost each and every ques type in CR is taking me between 2-2.5 mins.
5. I eventually realize the mistake while analyzing but in the exam mode that is not improving despite realization and I am not able to fill that 10 ques gap in verbal b'coz of CR.

I am clear that we are supposed to attack conclusion in Strengthen weaken, but how should one go about above questions list.
Please let me know what can be done to improve on these ques types in 5 days time?

2 - 2.5 mins per CR question is acceptable.
You must read every option fully before discarding it as irrelevant or out of scope.
If the argument is comparing two groups, understand exactly which two groups it is comparing. The correct option should discuss those groups only.

Start practicing in a timed manner - Say 25 mins for 10 questions. Then analyse taking as much time as you wish.
Manager
Joined: 06 Feb 2017
Posts: 195
Own Kudos [?]: 19 [0]
Given Kudos: 92
Location: India
KarishmaB

Hi karishma,
i just want to ask some generic question
1.What's the trend of CR question as of now means what type of more questions are asked.
2.What's your take about conditional reasoning questions are they tested much or rarely tested.

any tips or suggestion to score high in CR.
Tutor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 14968
Own Kudos [?]: 66056 [0]
Given Kudos: 435
Location: Pune, India
saby1410 wrote:
KarishmaB

Hi karishma,
i just want to ask some generic question
1.What's the trend of CR question as of now means what type of more questions are asked.
2.What's your take about conditional reasoning questions are they tested much or rarely tested.

any tips or suggestion to score high in CR.

Essentially we have 4 main types of CR questions - Strengthen, Weaken, Inference and Method (Based on structure of the argument)
The other types are, in a way, applications or different flavours of these. Assumption is a special type of strengthen, mimic a special type of method, 'best completes' a strengthen or a weaken etc.
The kind of questions you will get in the test depends on how well you are performing though the intent of the software is to give you variety. At lower score levels, people are more likely to see simple, direct strengthen/weaken/inference questions more often. At higher scores, the software is likely to throw in more applications and curve balls.
As for conditional reasoning, we don't usually get "questions based on conditional reasoning" but what you do need to understand conditional reasoning very very well. You could have a conditional conclusion or a condition provided in one of the premises. The test maker is very likely to give you options that will confuse you if you do not understand the conditions very well. A flaw in logic or a mimic question could be based on an incorrect inference of a conditional statement etc. All in all, you MUST understand the conditionals well.
Manager
Joined: 06 Feb 2017
Posts: 195
Own Kudos [?]: 19 [0]
Given Kudos: 92
Location: India
KarishmaB

when we apply variance test or yes/no test to evaluate questions so correct option always strengthen and weaken both or do either of will also be correct
Tutor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 14968
Own Kudos [?]: 66056 [0]
Given Kudos: 435
Location: Pune, India
saby1410 wrote:
KarishmaB

when we apply variance test or yes/no test to evaluate questions so correct option always strengthen and weaken both or do either of will also be correct

The yes/no answers of the correct option impact the conclusion "differently."
One could strengthen/weaken while the other may have no impact. They could have opposite impact too i.e. one could strengthen and the other could weaken.