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.
Apr 2912:30 AM EDT
-01:30 AM EDT
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.
Apr 2808:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
Apr 3001:30 AM EDT
-02:30 AM EDT
At one point, she believed GMAT wasn’t for her. After scoring 595, self-doubt crept in and she questioned her potential. But instead of quitting, she made the right strategic changes. The result? A remarkable comeback to 695. Check out how Saakshi did it.
May 0111:00 AM PDT
-12:00 PM PDT
Free- full-length test + 15 concept videos + 150+ short videos + study plan!
May 0306:30 AM PDT
-08:30 AM PDT
Verbal trouble on GMAT? Fix it NOW! Join Sunita Singhvi for a focused webinar on actionable strategies to boost your Verbal score and take your performance to the next level.
globaldesi
Joined: 28 Jul 2016
Last visit: 23 Feb 2026
Posts: 1,140
Given Kudos: 67
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Human Resources
Schools: ISB '18 (D)
GPA: 3.97
WE:Project Management (Finance: Investment Banking)
Products:
08 Feb 2020, 23:16
Kudos
Bookmarks
B
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
95%
(hard)
Question Stats:
44% (02:12) correct
56%
(02:14)
wrong
based on 280
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
An increase in death rate from pulmonary tract infection in the past five years has been blamed on the increase in urban pollution. However, since the death rate from bronchitis has increased dramatically even in cities with little or no pollution, one must instead conclude that the cause of increased deaths is the use of the nebulizer, a device used to convert medication into inhalable aerosol, by bronchitis sufferers to relieve their symptoms.
Each of the following, if true, provides support to the argument EXCEPT:
A) Urban population has not shown any significant increase in the past five years.
B) The recording of deaths due to bronchitis has become more widespread and accurate in the past five years.
C) Evidence suggests that nebulizers make the lungs more vulnerable to repeat attacks of bronchitis.
D) By temporarily relieving the symptoms of bronchitis, nebulizers encourage sufferers to avoid more beneficial long-term measures.
E) Nebulizers gained widespread popularity as a treatment aid for bronchitis only in the past five years.
Each of the following, if true, provides support to the argument EXCEPT:
A) Urban population has not shown any significant increase in the past five years.
B) The recording of deaths due to bronchitis has become more widespread and accurate in the past five years.
C) Evidence suggests that nebulizers make the lungs more vulnerable to repeat attacks of bronchitis.
D) By temporarily relieving the symptoms of bronchitis, nebulizers encourage sufferers to avoid more beneficial long-term measures.
E) Nebulizers gained widespread popularity as a treatment aid for bronchitis only in the past five years.
Updated on: 11 Feb 2020, 13:29
Originally posted by IanStewart on 11 Feb 2020, 06:43.
Last edited by IanStewart on 11 Feb 2020, 13:29, edited 1 time in total.
Last edited by IanStewart on 11 Feb 2020, 13:29, edited 1 time in total.
Kudos
Bookmarks
edit: I think I misread answer A when I first replied (I thought it said urban "pollution" had not increased, probably because that would clearly bear on the argument, but looking at it now it says "urban population"). So my original reply objected that A contradicted a premise of the argument, since the argument tells us urban pollution has increased. Of course premises can never be false, so as I first misread answer A, it was an answer choice you could never see in a real GMAT CR question.
I still think A is problematic with the word "population", since if we're to think that A supports the argument, we have to introduce assumptions or outside knowledge about how a population increase might affect the incidence of the particular death rate the question discusses (note it's talking about rates, and not absolute numbers -- if it were about total numbers, A would more clearly be relevant). Using only the information provided, we have no way to know if a population increase, with all other factors remaining constant, would increase, decrease, or leave unaffected the death rate discussed. So there's no way to know if A rules out an alternative cause of the increase or if A is irrelevant. You can imagine replacing answer A with an answer that reads "Ice cream sales did not increase over the last five years". Does that rule out an alternative cause too? Would that support the argument? Clearly not, but nor does information about population unless you know something about how population and the death rate discussed interact.
B also does not support the argument, since if deaths are now more likely to be recorded, that might offer an alternative explanation for the increase in reported deaths, and the nebulizer might not be responsible. So while B is perhaps more justifiable than A, I think this question has two perfectly good answers.
I still think A is problematic with the word "population", since if we're to think that A supports the argument, we have to introduce assumptions or outside knowledge about how a population increase might affect the incidence of the particular death rate the question discusses (note it's talking about rates, and not absolute numbers -- if it were about total numbers, A would more clearly be relevant). Using only the information provided, we have no way to know if a population increase, with all other factors remaining constant, would increase, decrease, or leave unaffected the death rate discussed. So there's no way to know if A rules out an alternative cause of the increase or if A is irrelevant. You can imagine replacing answer A with an answer that reads "Ice cream sales did not increase over the last five years". Does that rule out an alternative cause too? Would that support the argument? Clearly not, but nor does information about population unless you know something about how population and the death rate discussed interact.
B also does not support the argument, since if deaths are now more likely to be recorded, that might offer an alternative explanation for the increase in reported deaths, and the nebulizer might not be responsible. So while B is perhaps more justifiable than A, I think this question has two perfectly good answers.
aniket16c
Current Student
Joined: 20 Oct 2018
Last visit: 04 Jan 2026
Posts: 176
Given Kudos: 57
Location: India
Schools: Ross '24 (D) Darden '24 (A)
GMAT 1: 690 Q49 V34
GMAT 2: 740 Q50 V40
GPA: 4
11 Feb 2020, 10:52
Kudos
Bookmarks
globaldesi
Tract infection: Increase in pollution in urban areas is causing an increasing in death rate from tract infection.
Bronchitis: Urban areas with little or no pollution -> Dramatic increase in death rates. Thus pollution is not a cause and the cause is something different.
Something different = Use of nebulizer
Question – Support + Except
A) Urban population has not shown any significant increase in the past five years.
- If urban population has remained constant the increase in death rate is not because of increase in population that may cause a rise in number of bronchitis cases.
- Hence, this eliminates a third reason and partially supports the reason provided
B) The recording of deaths due to bronchitis has become more widespread and accurate in the past five years.
- The recording has increased, this argument provides an additional reason for the rise in bronchitis cases. This argument weakens the reason of medication.
- Correct
C) Evidence suggests that nebulizers make the lungs more vulnerable to repeat attacks of bronchitis.
- Provides an explanation for nebulizers having an effect on bronchitis patients
- Supports – Hence wrong
D) By temporarily relieving the symptoms of bronchitis, nebulizers encourage sufferers to avoid more beneficial long-term measures.
- Since the patients are avoiding curing the disease completely, the chances of it recurring are high. - This increases the death rate.
- Supports – Hence wrong
E) Nebulizers gained widespread popularity as a treatment aid for bronchitis only in the past five years.
- This suggests an increase in the use of nebulizers
- This supports the case that an increase in use of nebulizers can cause an increase in the death rate
- Supports hence wrong
