A recent survey revealed that the proportion of stage artists belongin

Question

A recent survey revealed that the proportion of stage artists belonging to Theatreville that visited skin specialists for treatment related to skin lesions has increased significantly over the past ten years. As a part of their jobs, stage artists typically use make-up containing lead, the main culprit behind such skin lesions. Therefore, either the artists are using unusually higher amount of make-up or they have more sensitive skins than the artists had a decade ago.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

A) There has not been any significant increase in the number of stage artists in Theatreville.
B) The make-up kits that most artists have been using now do not achieve long-lasting make-up effects by significantly increasing the concentration of lead.
C) No other ingredient in the make-up used by the stage artists is responsible for other skin irritations for which a visit to the doctor is required.
D) People with highly sensitive skins are likely to be vulnerable to the side effects of lead used in the make-up.
E) Some companies have introduced high quality make-up in which the composition does not require the inclusion of high quantities of lead-based substances.

yashikaaggarwal · Accepted Answer

"As a part of their jobs, stage artists typically use make-up containing lead, the main culprit behind such skin lesions. Therefore, either the artists are using unusually higher amount of make-up or they have more sensitive skins than the artists had a decade ago."

The passage concludes that the cause of skin problems is ultimately the usage of lead used in cosmetics, which is often used by artists.

So we need to prove that the makeup does contain lead and is been used often..

A) There has not been any significant increase in the number of stage artists in Theatreville.  (The number of theatre artists has nothing to do with the concluding statement/main point of the passage, we need to know about lead. Which is missing here) (Irrelevant)

B) The make-up kits that most artists have been using now do not achieve long-lasting make-up effects by significantly increasing the concentration of lead.   (This explains that the lead is definitely used in makeup products also the makeup is been used often because the long lasting make ups (which have lead in it) is not giving appropriate results, making the artists to use it again and again, leading to skin damage) (Answer)

C) No other ingredient in the make-up used by the stage artists is responsible for other skin irritations for which a visit to the doctor is required. (Which ingredient? We don't have specific list to determine the content of makeup so we can't state with conviction whether its true or false)

D) People with highly sensitive skins are likely to be vulnerable to the side effects of lead used in the make-up.  {See it can be the truth, but anything about artists is not mentioned, we can't conclude all artists have sensitive skin, what if they don't? Invalid}

E) Some companies have introduced high quality make-up in which the composition does not require the inclusion of high quantities of lead-based substances.  {If anything this is weakening the argument, because if makeup don't use leaf, then how artists are having skin problems and if they are having skin problem then the cause must be different which is not mentioned) (Incorrect)

Answer is B

Posted from my mobile device

mike6789 · Answer

Why option A is incorrect?
What if a decade back there were 100 artists and 10 went to doctor for skin problems.
Now there are 300 artists and 20 went to doctor for skin problems. This means that more number of artists are visiting doctors beacause of overall increase of artists. This undermines the conclusion by providing another reason.

vmadan10 · Answer

Could we please get the OE.

Thanks!

mukherjeeabhish · Answer

Can anyone give the OE for this one ?

RYTHEM · Answer

Can someone explain why option c is not right

vicky2019 · Answer

I think it's because it is stated in passage that "the proportion of artists" has increased and not number of artists.

If there were 100 artists 10 years back out of them 10 were visiting. That's 1/10th of total artists.
Now out of 300, 100 are visiting doctor. that's 1/3rd of total artists.

cristianov · Answer

Answer B seems another re-phrasing of the conclusions of the passage, not an assumption on which it depens.

I think that the correct answer is C, since the increase in the proportion of skin illness is not due to other factors other than lead.

rhythminme2008 · Answer

I agree with most users that options B & C are so close. I chose (C) myself, but upon re-examination of the question stem, I think (B) does make sense. But I regret not reading word-for-word the answer choices.

So (B) is saying that increasing the concentration of lead does not lead to long-lasting effects. What this NOT explicitly saying, but can be deduced, is that one does NOT NEED to increase the amount of make-up in order to have long-lasting effects. The alternative method of keeping make-up in the same amounts but concentrating the lead would have achieved the same result. Therefore, this, which is negated from the answer provided in (B), would dismantle the conclusion made by the author, which explicitly indicate “unusually higher amount of make-up.”

I think that the fine point of amount vs concentration made (B) the correct choice.

Having said that, I still think that (C) is a close second, and a straight-forward one to negate and thereby dismantle the broader conclusion the author is making. So having it there next to (B) is just...pure genius, or evil (I’m joking).

AliciaFeng · Answer

Be careful to the word "concentration" in option B.

If we negate option B, we would get :

The make-up kits achieve long-lasting makeup effects by significantly increasing the concentration of lead.

This implies that "higher concentration" is an alternative cause for artists' skin lesion.

But this weakened the argument.So eliminating this cause is the required assumption.

Posted from my mobile device

tinbq · Answer

Hi,
The argument presents a phenomenon that contemporary stage artists are more likely, in percentage, to visit skin specialists than their colleagues in the past and, more importantly, the reason behind this:  lead contained in cosmetics is the cause of skin lesions . Hence, it concludes that there are two possible explanations for this phenomenon (1- same amount of lead in cosmetics, but artists skin are more sensitive or 2- artists skin are equal in sensitivity, but contemporary artists expose to higher amount of lead  by using unusually higher amount of make-up ).

So now we can look at the choices.
A - absolute number is irrelevant, because the argument only mention about percentage.
B - this choice eliminates the possibility that contemporary artists use the same amount of make-up, but still have been exposed to higher amount of lead. => CORRECT
C - whether other ingredients that might cause skin lesions exist in make-up is irrelevant, as the argument already stated that lead in make-up is the cause.
D - This option mentions about people in general, not artists, hence irrelevant to the argument.
E - This option is out of scope, as it does not help to explain why larger percentage of contemporary stage artists visit skin specialists than it was in the past.

YashYashkratos · Answer

Question clearly states proportion of artists visiting not the number of artists.

sayan640 · Answer

The conclusion is that actors used higher amount of make up s and that led to the skin lesions.
The main word is "concentration".
If the concentration is increased from 60% to 80% in 100 gm of make up then we can't say that higher amount of make up s ( say 200 gms ) are responsible .
Option B rules this possibility , saying that they dint increase the concentration of lead in the same amount and rather , they increased the amount of make up . Hence higher amount of make up is used , which caused the skin lesion. 
B is the answer.
 egmat

Posted from my mobile device

CodingGmat · Answer

I am still finding it difficult to eliminate D. Though this option talks about people in general but the theory that sensitive skin is vulnerable still applies to the artists. The assumption can be thought of this way:
People with more sensitive skin -> vulnerable to skin problems. Artists are having increasing skin problems, so there is a possibility that they have more sensitive skin. 
Negating this assumption would be: "People with highly sensitive skins are NOT likely to be vulnerable to the side effects of lead used in the make-up." This breaks the last line of the argument: "or they have more sensitive skins than the artists had a decade ago."

Can someone please help understand this? 
 yashikaaggarwal 
@

A recent survey revealed that the proportion of stage artists belongin

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

A recent survey revealed that the proportion of stage artists belongin

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