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 2610:00 AM EDT
-11:00 AM EDT
The Target Test Prep course represents a quantum leap forward in GMAT preparation, a radical reinterpretation of the way that students should study. Try before you buy with a 5-day, full-access trial of the course for FREE!
Apr 2711:00 AM EDT
-12:00 PM EDT
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors
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.
30 May 2024, 01:30
Kudos
Bookmarks
C
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
25%
(medium)
Question Stats:
78% (01:26) correct
22%
(01:41)
wrong
based on 148
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
In a certain state, the rate at which inhabitants of City X contract a certain disease is significantly lower than the rate at which inhabitants of City Y contract the disease. So if a couple originally from City Y relocates to City X and raises a family there, their children will be significantly less likely to contract this disease than they would had they remained in City Y.
Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion drawn in the passage?
A. Many health experts do not believe that moving to City X will lead to a significant increase in the average person’s immunity to the disease.
B. The mayor of City Y has falsely claimed that statistics relating to the incidence of the disease in his city are not accurate.
C. The lower incidence of the disease in City X can be ascribed mostly to genetically determined factors.
D. Some inhabitants of City Y possess a greater immunity to the disease than do the healthiest inhabitants of City X.
E. Smog levels in City X are significantly lower than those of any other city in the state.
Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion drawn in the passage?
A. Many health experts do not believe that moving to City X will lead to a significant increase in the average person’s immunity to the disease.
B. The mayor of City Y has falsely claimed that statistics relating to the incidence of the disease in his city are not accurate.
C. The lower incidence of the disease in City X can be ascribed mostly to genetically determined factors.
D. Some inhabitants of City Y possess a greater immunity to the disease than do the healthiest inhabitants of City X.
E. Smog levels in City X are significantly lower than those of any other city in the state.
Shwarma
Joined: 10 Sep 2023
Last visit: 25 May 2025
Posts: 210
Given Kudos: 65
Location: India
Schools: Tepper '27 Ross '27 Foster '27 Kellogg
GMAT Focus 1: 655 Q82 V83 DI84 
GPA: 4
Products:
30 May 2024, 09:16
Kudos
Bookmarks
Option C
City Y couple move to X to raise a family there to reduce contracting disease to kids.
B,D,E- Irrelevant
A- even a slight increase in health is good - so this option is not really weakening ...
C- if genetic then just moving is not going to help your kids have better health
City Y couple move to X to raise a family there to reduce contracting disease to kids.
B,D,E- Irrelevant
A- even a slight increase in health is good - so this option is not really weakening ...
C- if genetic then just moving is not going to help your kids have better health
02 Jun 2024, 20:00
Kudos
Bookmarks
Bunuel
KAPLAN OFFICIAL EXPLANATION:
C
To weaken the argument, we need to find the choice that contradicts its key assumption. The conclusion is that moving from City Y to City X will lower the likelihood of contracting the disease, since the disease occurs at a much lower rate in City X. The assumption is that the fact of being born in or living in City X reduces the risk of contracting the disease; in other words, environmental factors (such as lifestyle, air quality, health care costs, or some other factor affecting people's lives) in City X are responsible for the low incidence of the disease. Now let's find a choice the makes this assumption unlikely to be true.
(A) is out of scope; the rates of incidence in the two cities, not the opinion of professionals, are at issue here. Also, this type of "appeal to authority" is rarely correct on the GMAT. (B) would strengthen the argument; the statistics state that the incidence is higher in City Y and if the mayor were proven to have falsely suggested otherwise, it would still make sense to move to City X, where the incidence is lower. (D) is irrelevant. Even if true, it would not imply that the risk for the average person is lower in City Y.
(E) is out of scope; we have no information on whether smog has anything to do with the disease in question. Furthermore, this would, if anything, strengthen the conclusion by
providing at least one sense in which City X is a more healthful place to live. (C) states that genetic makeup (as opposed to something in the environment) is responsible for the low incidence of the disease in City X. In other words, the risk is determined by genetic factors, not by where one is born or where one lives. This contradicts the assumption that there is something about the environment in City X that lowers the risk of contracting the disease, so (C) is correct.
