As part of an economic development plan. Country Y has made a great

Question

As part of an economic development plan. Country Y has made a great effort over the last twenty years to increase the number of new drugs and medical devices produced by its companies—even though there have been budget cuts in some areas. However, despite the increases in government grants and tax incentives, the number of new drugs and devices approved by the government regulatory agency has actually dropped by 30 percent over ten years—even though the approval process has not changed nor the diligence with which it is carried out.

Which of the following, if true, would most help to explain why the 30 percent drop has occurred?

A. Funding for staffing of the medical regulatory agency in Country Y fell by 25 percent over the last fifteen years.
B. New drugs typically require 1-10 years to be developed for market.
C. Research companies’ spending on drugs fell relative to spending on medical devices during this period.
D. The number of graduates from pharmacy schools in Country Y decreased by 10 percent in the last fifteen years.
E. Most new medical devices produced in Country Y during the last twenty years have depended crucially on foreign patents.

Show Spoiler

Attachment:

GMAT-Club-Forum-pjrun7yc.png [ 107.06 KiB | Viewed 4669 times ]

Show Answer

Official Answer

A

Using official mocks already? Add GMAT Club Tests for harder practice, analytics, and explanations without overlapping Official Guide or official mock questions. Try it now →

MartyMurray · Accepted Answer

As part of an economic development plan. Country Y has made a great effort over the last twenty years to increase the number of new drugs and medical devices produced by its companies—even though there have been budget cuts in some areas. However, despite the increases in government grants and tax incentives, the number of new drugs and devices approved by the government regulatory agency has actually dropped by 30 percent over ten years—even though the approval process has not changed nor the diligence with which it is carried out.

The passage presents a surprising situation in which, even though the government has "over the last twenty years" taken actions to increase the number of new drugs and medical devices produced by the country's companies and the approval process has not changed, the number of new drugs and devices approved by the government regulatory agency has "dropped by 30 percent over ten years."

Which of the following, if true, would most help to explain why the 30 percent drop has occurred?

This question is a Paradox or Best Explains question, and the correct answer will explain why there was a 30 percent decrease over ten years despite a twenty-year effort to achieve an increase.

A. Funding for staffing of the medical regulatory agency in Country Y fell by 25 percent over the last fifteen years.

Seeing this choice, we get the sense that answering this question is going to involve noticing specific details.

What we can notice about the specific details of this choice is that a 25 percent decrease in funding for staffing over fifteen years doesn't quite match up with a 30 percent decrease in approvals over ten years.

Yes, what this choice says would explain a decrease in approvals. In fact, it would explain well a 25 percent decrease over 15 years. After all, the fact that funding for staffing of the agency decreased would explain why approvals by the agency slowed down.

At the same time, this choice's specific information about a 25 percent decrease over fifteen years doesn't seen to explain a larger, 30 percent decrease over a shorter time period, ten years.

So, this choice is likely incorrect, but we can keep it until we find a better one.

Keep for now, but expect to be incorrect.

B. New drugs typically require 1-10 years to be developed for market.

Presumably this fact has been true all along. So, it would not explain why a decrease started 10 years ago.

Eliminate.

C. Research companies’ spending on drugs fell relative to spending on medical devices during this period.

This choice presents a comparison of spending on drugs with spending on medical devices but doesn't say that overall spending on the two categories of products decreased. In fact, for all we know given what this choice says, overall spending could have increased if spending on medical devices increased substantially.

So, this comparison does not explain the decrease in approvals.

Eliminate.

D. The number of graduates from pharmacy schools in Country Y decreased by 10 percent in the last fifteen years.

This choice is like choice (A) and once again is likely incorrect because of specifics,

After all, a 10 percent decrease in graduates from pharmacy schools over 15 years doesn't quite match up with a 30 percent decrease in approvals over 10 years.

What this choice says would perhaps explain a 10 percent decrease over 15 years but doesn't seen to explain a larger, 30 percent, decrease over a shorter time period, 10 years.

So, this choice is likely incorrect.

Keep for now, but expect to be incorrect.

E. Most new medical devices produced in Country Y during the last twenty years have depended crucially on foreign patents.

This choice doesn't explain a decreae in approvals over the past 10 years at all.

Does depending on foreign patents cause a decrease in approvals? We have no reason to believe it does.

Also, something that occurred over the last twenty years would not likely have caused a decrease over only the past ten years.

Eliminate.

Having gone through all the choices, we're left with (A) and (D) as the only ones that could at all explain a decrease.

(A), with its 25 percent decrease in staffing over 15 years, is closer to a 30 percent decrease over 10 years than (D), with its 10 percent decrease in graduates.

So, its a good thing we kept (A) since (A) is the best choice.

Correct answer:  A

sachi-in · Answer

Summary:  Efforts put in to increase drug and med equipment sales - yet no improvement over last 10 years

Provided:  level of scrutiny of the drug and med equipment remains the same

A. Reduction in staffing for regulatory board may lead to increase pending approvals  ( correct )
Reduction in staffs can correlate to lower productivity ( though not completely air tight, approvals may be automated )

B. New drugs typically require 1-10 years to be developed for market.
 This looks nice but has multiple flaws
1. It's not just about drugs , maybe med equipements don't take 10 years to develop they only take 1 month (and more of them are developed)
2. It may take 1-10 years, but then that was the scenario all along, now with government approval it should atleast increase slightly but instead it has decreased

C. Research companies’ spending on drugs fell relative to spending on medical devices during this period
 Spending may fall but it doesn't strongly relate to decrease in number of drugs + medical equipment developed

D. The number of graduates from pharmacy schools in Country Y decreased by 10 percent in the last fifteen years.
 Lower no. of graduates doesn't correlate to lower no. of workers, THOUGH lower no. of workers may correlate to lower productivity as in A

E. Most new medical devices produced in Country Y during the last twenty years have depended crucially on foreign patents.
 Dependency doesn't mean corelation with reduction in number of patent's ( imagine increased imports )

siddd30 · Answer

Hey Marty,

Thanks for providing the explanation. The reason I went for option E, and not the others is:
1) As you said, they seem to be weak
2) Introducing a third factor which actually influences the patents, and not the ones hypothesised by the government could explain for the discrepancy here- basically, the govt. solved for the wrong thing. That the cyclicity of the foreign patents were actually influencing patents in the country

Please let me know if I am missing something? Or it could simply mean- that dependence on foreign patents could swing both ways- and not necessarily decrease?

Gemmie · Answer

The drop in the number of new drugs and medical devices approved by the government regulatory agency in Country Y, despite increased efforts and incentives, can be best explained by the following: A. Funding for staffing of the medical regulatory agency in Country Y fell by 25 percent over the last fifteen years.

This explanation is the most relevant because it directly addresses a potential bottleneck in the approval process. Even if the number of submissions for new drugs and devices has increased, a significant reduction in staffing at the regulatory agency could lead to delays and a lower number of approvals. This would help explain the 30 percent drop in approvals, despite the unchanged approval process and diligence.

KarishmaB · Answer

Given: Country Y has made efforts over the last 20 years to increase the number of new drugs and medical devices produced by its companies. (government grants and tax incentives) Still, the number of new drugs and devices approved by the government regulatory agency has actually dropped by 30 percent over ten years The approval process has not changed nor the diligence with which it is carried out Paradox - The govt has tried to increase the number of new drugs and medical devices by giving grants but the number of new drugs and devices approved have reduced by 30%. Why? One possible explanation for the paradox has been rejected - approval process has not gotten longer. Lots of ways to explain the paradox - may be too many new drugs and devices had low quality (so not approved) or perhaps govt's money was misappropriated etc. The gap between 'given a lot of money to increase the number' vs 'fewer got approved' is quite big. A. Funding for staffing of the medical regulatory agency in Country Y fell by 25 percent over the last fifteen years. This is a way to explain the paradox. If there are fewer people working for the approval committee, then approvals could take a lot longer especially if approval process has not changed nor the diligence with which it is carried out. If there can be no shortcuts, then with fewer people, it will take longer. Hence fewer approval processes got completed. B. New drugs typically require 1-10 years to be developed for market. This is a not change of the last 1 or 2 decades. This is standard. It was taking the same time many years ago too when more number of drugs were getting approved. C. Research companies’ spending on drugs fell relative to spending on medical devices during this period. The argument does not make any distinction between drugs and devices. D. The number of graduates from pharmacy schools in Country Y decreased by 10 percent in the last fifteen years. Fewer pharmacists (people who sell the drugs and devices) does not affect how many get approved. E. Most new medical devices produced in Country Y during the last twenty years have depended crucially on foreign patents. Irrelevant. Why don't they get approved quickly is the question. 'Dependence of foreign patents' doesn't explain this. Answer (A) Discussion on Paradox Questions: https://youtu.be/7mckzPg-xjo

PeachSnapple1 · Answer

I swear, in some other questions, the GMAT would outright dismiss A as A only said something that has been already included/mentioned in the passage   Yet the logic here in A is considered correct. I guess we need to learn how to pick the lesser of two devils, or in some cases, five evils.

kartickdey · Answer

MartyMurray 
 KarishmaB

I initially choose option A but finally eliminated this option because in the passage it is mentioned "  even though there have been budget cuts in some areas  ". It implies that the decline in funding has already taken into account by the author. The paradox should be resolved by some other factor. Please rectify me if my thought process is wrong.

MartyMurray · Answer

The passage says the following:

Country Y has made a great effort  over the last twenty years to increase the number of new drugs and medical devices produced by its companies—even though there have been budget cuts in some areas.

That statement makes it unclear whether Country Y has made budget cuts in areas related to production of drugs and medical devices. After all, if the country has "made a great effort" to increase production of drugs and medical devices, then it could be that it has made budget cuts only in unrelated areas or only in noncritical areas.

Overall, it's not clear what exactly the budget cuts have involved.

So, the specific information provided by (A) about the decrease in "funding for staffing of the medical regulatory agency" is new information that does help to clarify what occurred.

Also, (A) is the only choice that provides any kind of solid reason for the decrease in approvals. So, we have to go with it. There's nothing else to choose.

Takeaway:  If, after eliminating a CR answer choice because there appear to be reasons why it doesn't work, we don't find a better choice, the move is to go back to that choice and bring it back into consideration.

As part of an economic development plan. Country Y has made a great

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

­As part of an economic development plan. Country Y has made a great

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

As part of an economic development plan. Country Y has made a great