Ten years ago, the death rate from Neural Synapse Deficiency

Question

Ten years ago, the death rate from Neural Synapse Deficiency – related causes was 5% of all persons infected with the dreaded anti-synapse virus that causes it. Today, the corresponding figure has risen to more than 15%. This is clear evidence that over the past ten years, the rate of propagation and the malignancy of the virus has increased substantially.

Which of the following, if true, most substantially strengthens the argument above?

Which of the following, if true, most substantially strengthens the argument above?

A. Anti-synapse virus screening and detection methods have been dramatically improved over the past decade.
B. The number of anti-synapse virus infected persons has increased tenfold over the past ten years.
C. The number of persons who are willing to submit the anti-synapse virus screening has increased significantly over the past ten years.
D. The number of recognized Neural Synapse Deficiency related causes of death has remained relatively constant over the past ten years.
E. New drugs have been developed over the past ten years that significantly lessen the debilitating effects of the Neural Synapse Deficiency virus.

Carcass · Answer

B because we care about only if something makes strong the malignancy and propagation of virus

thevenus · Answer

Which of the following, if true, most substantially strengthens the argument above?
A. Anti-synapse virus screening and detection methods have been dramatically improved over the past decade.
 weakening;incorrect 
B. The number of anti-synapse virus infected persons has increased tenfold over the past ten years.
 no. of infected persons has increased causing more death percentage reveals that the virus is proliferating drastically; strengthen   
C. The number of persons who are willing to submit the anti-synapse virus screening has increased significantly over the past ten years.
 usually the willingness of telling the disease develops when the disease becomes lethal, though this AC is not correct, this can be considered as inference. 
D. The number of recognized Neural Synapse Deficiency related causes of death has remained relatively constant over the past ten years.
 weakening  
E. New drugs have been developed over the past ten years that significantly lessen the debilitating effects of the Neural Synapse Deficiency virus.
 weakening

IMO (B)

aj33 · Answer

A:the number might have been same: before it was not detected. now with better tech detection is there.
B: number has increased therefore the disease has increased.
C:willing to submit: number is same: before no submit. Today submit. increase is because there is submission.
D:COD is cocnstant. but no info abt propagation: may have increased. may have decreased . or may be constant. (if there was no Option B. Then this is what i would have picked.)
E:Effects have been reduced:AC is irrelevant as number of cases is important

I was initially picking A: But then i thgt this might be saying the cases have not changed i.e. number is fixed. so changed my reasoning. and got B. took me some 40 -45 sec extra.

tvrs09 · Answer

Hi everyone,

Here option C is incorrect because the increase in the screening of the virus do not necessarily strengthen the conclusion that the disease has propagated.It could be possible that people who are wiling to attend the screening are not infected by the anti-synapse virus at all.Their willingness for screening cannot be misconstrued here.

jishann · Answer

why D is wrong? :roll:

In B it might be possible that total no of people also increased.so the overall figure will be approx. same(5%)

nightblade354 · Answer

Hi Jishann,

Ten years ago, the death rate from Neural Synapse Deficiency – related causes was 5% of all persons infected with the dreaded anti-synapse virus that causes it. Today, the corresponding figure has risen to more than 15%. This is clear evidence that over the past ten years, the rate of propagation and the malignancy of the virus has increased substantially.

Which of the following, if true, most substantially strengthens the argument above?

Which of the following, if true, most substantially strengthens the argument above?

A. Anti-synapse virus screening and detection methods have been dramatically improved over the past decade. 
B. The number of anti-synapse virus infected persons has increased tenfold over the past ten years. --  Cases are going up; The virus has infected more people over the years 
C. The number of persons who are willing to submit the anti-synapse virus screening has increased significantly over the past ten years.
D. The number of recognized Neural Synapse Deficiency related causes of death has remained relatively constant over the past ten years. --  This talks about the rate of death and not the about the conclusion 
E. New drugs have been developed over the past ten years that significantly lessen the debilitating effects of the Neural Synapse Deficiency virus.

Does this help?

nkmungila · Answer

I feel D is the correct answer.Why D is incorrect over B?

Hientran48 · Answer

In D,  "the number of... causes of death" (constant) does not have anything to do with  "the rate of propagation and the malignancy of the virus"  (increased) --> Because it does not increase or reduce  the number of affected cases .

The conclusion: "This is clear evidence that over the past ten years, the rate of propagation and the malignancy of the virus has increased substantially."
--> D is irrelevant

nightblade354 · Answer

Hi @nkmunglia,

Please see my post above. I think it'll help!

Posted from my mobile device

broall · Answer

A. Anti-synapse virus screening and detection methods have been dramatically improved over the past decade.
 This choice antually weakens the argument. If screening and detection methods have been improved, the increasing figure is due to improved detection system, not by the increasing rate of propagation and the malignancy of the virus

B. The number of anti-synapse virus infected persons has increased tenfold over the past ten years.
 Correct. We could use negative technique.

If we negative this choice, then the number of anti-synapse virus infected persons has decreased. Hence, a figure of 15% at the present is actually lower than a figure of 5% in the past. The argument is destroyed.

C. The number of persons who are willing to submit the anti-synapse virus screening has increased significantly over the past ten years.
 Same as A. This choice weakens the argument.

D. The number of recognized Neural Synapse Deficiency related causes of death has remained relatively constant over the past ten years.
 This choice states about the number of death so this choice is irrelevant to the argument.

E. New drugs have been developed over the past ten years that significantly lessen the debilitating effects of the Neural Synapse Deficiency virus.
 Same as A, this choice weakens the argument.

gmatexam439 · Answer

Ten years ago, the death rate from Neural Synapse Deficiency – related causes was 5% of all persons infected with the dreaded anti-synapse virus that causes it. Today, the corresponding figure has risen to more than 15%. This is clear evidence that over the past ten years, the rate of propagation and the malignancy of the virus has increased substantially.

Which of the following, if true, most substantially strengthens the argument above?

Which of the following, if true, most substantially strengthens the argument above?
A. Anti-synapse virus screening and detection methods have been dramatically improved over the past decade. - This weakens the argument. If the technology has improved, then the number of deaths should have also reduced. 
B. The number of anti-synapse virus infected persons has increased tenfold over the past ten years. - Correct. If the number of infected people has increased, then it strengthens the argument that the rate of propagation and the malignancy of the virus has increased substantially.  
C. The number of persons who are willing to submit the anti-synapse virus screening has increased significantly over the past ten years. - This weakens the argument. If the people are willing to support the doctors, then the cure must have been developed. 
D. The number of recognized Neural Synapse Deficiency related causes of death has remained relatively constant over the past ten years. - This weakens the argument. If the number of deaths remained constant, then with the increase in # of infected people the percentage should have reduced. 
E. New drugs have been developed over the past ten years that significantly lessen the debilitating effects of the Neural Synapse Deficiency virus. - This weakens the argument. If vaccine is available then the deaths must have reduced.

hellosanthosh2k2 · Answer

Hi all,

I see this question as a quants problem.

I think the argument is arriving at the conclusion based on the 15% percent number.

Basically ratio is (no of deaths/no of infected)

ten years ago, the ratio , no of deaths/no of infected = 5/100,
ratio now, no of deaths/no of infected = 15/100.

The argument can be strengthened, if no of deaths now > no of deaths 10 years ago, merely show higher ratio does not strengthen the conclusion.

We need to show the actual no of deaths is higher.

Choice B gives, the no of infected increased ten fold.
 
say no of infected ten years ago is 100, then no of deaths is 5 (5%)
now by choice B, no of infected is ten fold, so 1000, by ratio 15%, number of deaths (15/100)*1000 = 150, which is definitely greater than no of deaths 10 years which is 5. So this strengthens the conclusion " the rate of propagation and the malignancy of the virus has increased substantially. "

sahilvijay · Answer

Suppose
2007= 100 infected => 5 are dead => 5%
2017 = 1000 infected {10x100} and >= 150 dead => rate > 15%
so In 1000 =. > 150 dead
In 100 =>. > 15 dead

=>>> In 2007, 5 out of 100 are dead and In 2017, >15 out of 100 are dead 
so clearly It strengthens

B is winner.

MPRS22 · Answer

D

If the number of related causes of death has not remained constant, but has increased, then the malignancy of the virus might not have increased. Rather, it is recognised that it was already causing more deaths than previously thought. This might explain why the rate has increased

VeritasKarishma   GMATNinja

KarishmaB · Answer

(D) and (E) both strengthen the conclusion to an extent. (B) doesn't at all. 
Normally one can ignore questions from unknown sources.

MPRS22 · Answer

Thankyou  VeritasKarishma

arushi118 · Answer

Correct: D

B: This tells us that the number of infected persons has increased substantially over the last 10 years. But this has nothing to do with "rate of propogation" or the "malignancy" of the virus - has if the number of infected persons has increased, it could be due to an increase in the total numbr of people.

D: The passage says that the percentage of deaths due to the virus has increased - and we have to strengthen this on the line that they have increased due to a higher rate of propagation of the virus. D does just this, it tells us that the number "other causes" of death due to the deficiency have remained constant over the years - so there have been no increase in the number of causes but still there is an increased rate of deaths - this could strengthen the fact that the increase in the percentage of death is due to an insrease in the rate of propagation of virus or its malignancy.

Prak0709 · Answer

Why cant it be E ? If the drugs have lowered the effects yet death rate grows, it indicates the virus has become deadlier ?

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Hi Prak0709

We need to  strengthen the claim  that the rise in proportion of infected persons dying is due to increased malignancy of the virus.

If drugs lessen effects, death rate should go down, but it went up. That paradox suggests virus deadlier despite better drugs. That strengthens malignancy increase idea. Because without drugs, death rate might be even higher, but despite drugs, death rate still rose so virus likely more malignant.

(E)  only supports malignancy (drugs better but still more die). It doesn't support propagation increase. Conclusion says  "rate of propagation AND malignancy increased substantially."  So we need support for both ideally.  (B)  supports both,  (E)  only one.

Therefore  (B)  is better than  (E)

Ten years ago, the death rate from Neural Synapse Deficiency

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

Ten years ago, the death rate from Neural Synapse Deficiency

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