For the last six months, because of concern over an increase in the us

Question

For the last six months, because of concern over an increase in the use of dangerous substances to improve performance, athletes in the Worldwide Sports League have been forbidden by league officials to use fasterol, a reflex-enhancing substance known to cause serious health problems after long-term use. Despite the ban, a higher percentage of athletes in the league have tested positive for the substance during chemical screenings in the last six months than in any prior six-month period since the league initiated testing. Clearly, the attempt to prohibit the use of fasterol merely increased the use of the substance by athletes in the league since the ban.

The answer to which of the following questions would be LEAST useful in evaluating the validity of the claim made in the argument above?

A) For how long after use does a residue of fasterol remain in an athlete's body?
B) Have athletes in the league experienced a decreased incidence of the types of health problems caused by fasterol?
C) Do any other performance-enhancing substances possess chemical characteristics similar to those of fasterol?
D) Was the chemical screening by which athletes were screened for fasterol in the last six months the same as that used prior to the prohibition?
E) Have the producers of fasterol recently increased their marketing efforts?

Chandrahaskrishna · Answer

As I see, the OA is B. But I have a doubt regarding the option C. Option C talks about 'other substances' and this, in no way, helps us evaluate anything related to the conclusion, since the conclusion is about 'Fasterol'. So, if someone can explain why it is B and not C, please help me out.

AnirudhChalla · Answer

Option C does help in evaluating the argument.
What if the athele used some other substance, which has the same chemical composition of Fasterol ?
The athele could still positive for thise chemicals. This could lead to the authorities to think that he/she used Fasterol, in which case he clearly didn't.

Posted from my mobile device

Ekland · Answer

Thanks for asking this.
If we answer yes, that other substances possess similar chemical characteristics to the substance in the argument, then their is a chance it is that other substance that's reading positive in the testing since it's chemical make up mimicks that of what is intended to test.
In that case, the claim(conclusion) made cannot remain valid. Thus answering the question C may be useful in evaluating the statement.

Note: also pay close attention to the question stem. LEAST useful means that all could be useful but if you put them in a scale in your mind you'd see that B is the most far fetched logic.
Others are quite clearly closer than B.

Feel free to ask any further question on this.

Chandrahaskrishna · Answer

Thank you for you swift response and the excellent explanation.
I have one more concern though. In case of evaluate questions, we need to check for both the angles, i.e., YES & NO. So, I am completely convinced with your explanation for YES. But how about the same, if we get a NO after we consider answer option C? Can you please elaborate?

AyushAgrawal1005 · Answer

Shouldn't the correct answer be E? It does not help evaluate consumption of the chemical by athletes.

SushilMomaya · Answer

The claim (or conclusion) is - prohibition on use of the substance has caused increased usage.

Option E helps in evaluating the validity of the claim. If there has been an increase in marketing efforts then increased usage is not because of the ban, but because of the marketing. If there has been no increase in marketing efforts, then the claim could be true. In other words evaluating marketing efforts does affect author's conclusion.

Posted from my mobile device

SushilMomaya · Answer

If the answer is no then there is a case for the conclusion to be strong. In other words a yes or a no affects the conclusion (which is a ban on usage has caused an increase in usage).

abhik1502 · Answer

@Bunnel  GMATNinja

will you pls help with the reason for the validity of B. I doubt if this is correct answer.

B) Have athletes in the league experienced a decreased incidence of the types of health problems caused by fasterol?

Though question says effect is seen in long term but this long term could be more or less than 6 month. So if we assumed that effect is seen after 3 month then a period of 6 month is good enough to ascertain the effects. 
If in these 6 month it has decreased then its for sure usage has gone down.
If in these 6 month it has increased then its usage has gone up.

E) Have the producers of fasterol recently increased their marketing efforts?

The usage of substance has been banned among athletes. Now this ban supersedes in athlete community compared to what marketing efforts are in place.
Marketing efforts could be higher or lower, but a higher or lower marketing doesn't guarantees its increased or decreased usage.

Gauravvinod92 · Answer

This is what i thought for option E ..that if it is banned then it would be prohibited regardless of any compaign.

Regards,
gaurav

rvgmat12 · Answer

OE:

Conclusion: Clearly, the attempt to prohibit the use of fasterol merely increased the use of the substance by athletes in the league since the ban.

Premises: For the last six months, athletes in the Worldwide Sports League have been forbidden by league officials to use fasterol, a reflex-enhancing substance known to cause serious health problems after long-term use. Despite the ban, a higher percentage of athletes in the league have tested positive for the substance during chemical screenings in the last six months than in any prior six-month period since the league initiated testing.

Assumptions: (1) It's not a coincidence. It's not a coincidence that a higher percentage of athletes in the league have tested positive after the ban.

(2) There's no other cause. There’s no other cause than the ban for the higher percentage of athletes in the league testing positive.

The question stem asks about evaluating the validity of the claim, so this is an evaluate the reasoning question. The passage contains a causality pattern, recognizable by noting that the conclusion states that the attempt to prohibit the use of fasterol merely increased the use of the substance by athletes. The conclusion is drawn on the basis of that a higher percentage of athletes in the league have tested positive for the substance during chemical screenings in the last six months than in any prior six-month period since the league initiated testing. Note the language shift between increased the use and a higher percentage…have tested positive.

The standard assumptions of a causality pattern are that it's not a coincidence and that there's no other cause. In this evaluate the argument question, the correct answer will be the one that has the LEAST bearing on these assumptions. In other words, the correct answer will not help determine whether the ban on fasterol increased its use. Evaluate the answer choices.

Choice A: No. This choice would be useful in evaluating the claim. If a residue of fasterol remains in an athlete's body for a long enough time, then the positive test results might be due to fasterol use before the ban. This would allow for the possibility that an increase in the percentage may be expected if a few people begin the use of fasterol during most time periods, which would allow for the increased percentage without an increase in the rate of use.

Choice B: Correct. This choice is not useful in evaluating the claim, as a decreased incidence of the types of health problems caused by fasterol is out of scope. If there has not been a decreased incidence, then old health problems caused by fasterol may still be in effect. If there has been a decreased incidence, then at least some old health problems caused by fasterol must not be in effect, but the increased percentage testing positive could still have many causes over many time periods.

Choice C: No. This choice would be useful in evaluating the claim. If other performance-enhancing substances possess chemical characteristics similar to those of fasterol, then the positive test results could be due to some other substance.

Choice D: No. This choice would be useful in evaluating the claim. If the chemical screening by which athletes were screened for fasterol has changed since the prohibition, then the change in positive testing might be due to the changed screening method rather than the ban.

Choice E: No. This choice would be useful in evaluating the claim. If the producers of fasterol have recently increased their marketing efforts, then the change in positive testing might be a result of successful marketing rather than the ban.

The correct answer is choice B.

udaypratapsingh99 · Answer

I think the same way!

bb   Bunuel   KarishmaB 
can you please help here?

KarishmaB · Answer

Fasterol was banned 6 months back because it causes serious health problems after long term use (this would likely mean use of some/many years).

But a higher % of athletes have tested positive in the last 6 months.

Conclusion: the attempt to prohibit the use of fasterol merely increased the use of the substance by athletes in the league since the ban

The conclusion is that because officials prohibited use of fasterol, its use increased (perhaps athletes thought that it must be giving a great advantage and that is why it is banned so more of them started using it)

We need to evaluate whether the ban was the reason for increased % of positivity.

A) For how long after use does a residue of fasterol remain in an athlete's body?

This is useful to evaluate. If the residual remains for many months, even if many athletes stopped using it but some started using it, the positive % could increase.

B) Have athletes in the league experienced a decreased incidence of the types of health problems caused by fasterol?

An athlete will not consume a substance that will have serious ill effect on his health in 3 or 6 months because he intends to compete. There is no advantage to be had then. He will only consume that which has an advantage right now with possibility of ill effect later on in life (say once his career is over). Hence, there is no point in evaluating the number of cases of similar health problems. Even if there are some, they are likely not caused by fasterol since its long term use causes issues, not short term.

C) Do any other performance-enhancing substances possess chemical characteristics similar to those of fasterol?

This is relevant. What if after the ban the athletes have switched to another substance similar to fasterol but not fasterol. They could be testing positive for that. Then we cannot say that prohibition has caused an increase in the use of fasterol.

D) Was the chemical screening by which athletes were screened for fasterol in the last six months the same as that used prior to the prohibition?

What if stricter chemical screening is being done now which is catching even trace amounts of fasterol? Then the number of athletes consuming it may have remained the same or even decreased but increased sensitivity of the tests would be catching more cases. Hence this is useful to evaluate.

E) Have the producers of fasterol recently increased their marketing efforts?

This could be an alternative reason for why use of fasterol has increased. It may not be because it was prohibited but because more athletes have become aware of what it can do for them because of more marketing. Then prohibition may have had no impact on the usage. 
Hence, it is useful to evaluate.

Answer (B)

udaypratapsingh99

udaypratapsingh99 · Answer

Oh, got it. Thanks a lot. Explaination of option E makes it clear. I was looking for at the increase of use of substance, however the conclusion is "use of substance is increased  because of ban ".

Thanks for explaination.

MuskaanMittal · Answer

Question Explanation

Conclusion: Clearly, the attempt to prohibit the use of fasterol merely increased the use of the substance by athletes in the league since the ban.

Premises: For the last six months, athletes in the Worldwide Sports League have been forbidden by league officials to use fasterol, a reflex-enhancing substance known to cause serious health problems after long-term use. Despite the ban, a higher percentage of athletes in the league have tested positive for the substance during chemical screenings in the last six months than in any prior six-month period since the league initiated testing.

Assumptions: (1) It's not a coincidence. It's not a coincidence that a higher percentage of athletes in the league have tested positive after the ban.

(2) There's no other cause. There’s no other cause than the ban for the higher percentage of athletes in the league testing positive.

The question stem asks about evaluating the validity of the claim, so this is an evaluate the reasoning question. The passage contains a causality pattern, recognizable by noting that the conclusion states that the attempt to prohibit the use of fasterol merely increased the use of the substance by athletes. The conclusion is drawn on the basis of that a higher percentage of athletes in the league have tested positive for the substance during chemical screenings in the last six months than in any prior six-month period since the league initiated testing. Note the language shift between increased the use and a higher percentage...have tested positive.

The standard assumptions of a causality pattern are that it's not a coincidence and that there's no other cause. In this evaluate the argument question, the correct answer will be the one that has the LEAST bearing on these assumptions. In other words, the correct answer will not help determine whether the ban on fasterol increased its use. Evaluate the answer choices.

Choice A: No. This choice would be useful in evaluating the claim. If a residue of fasterol remains in an athlete's body for a long enough time, then the positive test results might be due to fasterol use before the ban. This would allow for the possibility that an increase in the percentage may be expected if a few people begin the use of fasterol during most time periods, which would allow for the increased percentage without an increase in the rate of use.

Choice B: Correct. This choice is not useful in evaluating the claim, as a decreased incidence of the types of health problems caused by fasterol is out of scope. If there has not been a decreased incidence, then old health problems caused by fasterol may still be in effect. If there has been a decreased incidence, then at least some old health problems caused by fasterol must not be in effect, but the increased percentage testing positive could still have many causes over many time periods.

Choice C: No. This choice would be useful in evaluating the claim. If other performance-enhancing substances possess chemical characteristics similar to those of fasterol, then the positive test results could be due to some other substance.

Choice D: No. This choice would be useful in evaluating the claim. If the chemical screening by which athletes were screened for fasterol has changed since the prohibition, then the change in positive testing might be due to the changed screening method rather than the ban.

Choice E: No. This choice would be useful in evaluating the claim. If the producers of fasterol have recently increased their marketing efforts, then the change in positive testing might be a result of successful marketing rather than the ban.

The correct answer is choice B.

For the last six months, because of concern over an increase in the us

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

For the last six months, because of concern over an increase in the us

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