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.
May 1212:00 PM EDT
-11:59 PM EDT
Make the most of your break with the most realistic GMAT™ prep. Take up to $700 off select products.
14 Jun 2021, 08:00
Kudos
Bookmarks
C
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
55%
(hard)
Question Stats:
10% (00:22) correct
90%
(01:52)
wrong
based on 10
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
In the United States, people who contract pneumonia are ill for six weeks on average. However, those who live in Nevada are ill from pneumonia for an average four weeks, while those from New York are ill for an average seven weeks. If a newlywed couple from New York were to have a family in Nevada, their children would be ill from pneumonia for less time than if they lived in New York.
Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen the conclusion drawn in the argument presented above?
A In the past five years, the incidence of pneumonia has been dropping at a faster rate for New Yorkers than Nevadans.
B There have been studies that show Nevadans who move to New York and contract pneumonia will be ill for approximately the same amount of time as if they had stayed in Nevada.
C As the population of Nevada increases, it is anticipated that people there will be ill with pneumonia for a longer period of time.
D Favorable climate conditions, which mean less incidences of pneumonia, are found in states like Nevada, but not in states such as New York.
E Twenty percent of all New Yorkers who move to Nevada and have contracted pneumonia fell ill for less than four weeks.
Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen the conclusion drawn in the argument presented above?
A In the past five years, the incidence of pneumonia has been dropping at a faster rate for New Yorkers than Nevadans.
B There have been studies that show Nevadans who move to New York and contract pneumonia will be ill for approximately the same amount of time as if they had stayed in Nevada.
C As the population of Nevada increases, it is anticipated that people there will be ill with pneumonia for a longer period of time.
D Favorable climate conditions, which mean less incidences of pneumonia, are found in states like Nevada, but not in states such as New York.
E Twenty percent of all New Yorkers who move to Nevada and have contracted pneumonia fell ill for less than four weeks.
Archived Topic
Hi there,
This topic has been closed and archived due to inactivity or violation of community quality standards. No more replies are possible here.
Where to now? Join ongoing discussions on thousands of quality questions in our Critical Reasoning (CR) Forum
Still interested in this question? Check out the "Best Topics" block below for a better discussion on this exact question, as well as several more related questions.
Thank you for understanding, and happy exploring!
14 Jun 2021, 08:32
Kudos
Bookmarks
In the United States, people who contract pneumonia are ill for six weeks on average. However, those who live in Nevada are ill from pneumonia for an average four weeks, while those from New York are ill for an average seven weeks. If a newlywed couple from New York were to have a family in Nevada, their children would be ill from pneumonia for less time than if they lived in New York.
Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen the conclusion drawn in the argument presented above?
Based on pre-thinking, the answer would suggest that there are no other factors, other than the city dynamics, which should result in the change in nature of the disease period for the residents.
A In the past five years, the incidence of pneumonia has been dropping at a faster rate for New Yorkers than Nevadans. The argument does not care about the incidences of pneumonia, but on the time period of illness. Incorrect.
B There have been studies that show Nevadans who move to New York and contract pneumonia will be ill for approximately the same amount of time as if they had stayed in Nevada. This would actually weaken the argument as it would mean that there is no effect of city location on illness period for people who move. But, this is not the reasoning why I would reject this. The reason is that it shows pattern of people moving from Nevada to New York, but our family in question is moving the other way. There could be many reasons why Nevada people might avoid a longer illness duration.
C As the population of Nevada increases, it is anticipated that people there will be ill with pneumonia for a longer period of time. How much longer? In any case, this is working against strengthening our argument.
D Favorable climate conditions, which mean less incidences of pneumonia, are found in states like Nevada, but not in states such as New York. Hm.. this actually gives me a characteristic of the place which is leading to shorter illness period. This looks like a good choice. Let's hold it.
E Twenty percent of all New Yorkers who move to Nevada and have contracted pneumonia fell ill for less than four weeks. What?! This means that 80% either fell ill for equal to or more than 4 weeks? This is again working against our argument. Incorrect.
Therefore, in my opinion, answer should be D.
Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen the conclusion drawn in the argument presented above?
Based on pre-thinking, the answer would suggest that there are no other factors, other than the city dynamics, which should result in the change in nature of the disease period for the residents.
A In the past five years, the incidence of pneumonia has been dropping at a faster rate for New Yorkers than Nevadans. The argument does not care about the incidences of pneumonia, but on the time period of illness. Incorrect.
B There have been studies that show Nevadans who move to New York and contract pneumonia will be ill for approximately the same amount of time as if they had stayed in Nevada. This would actually weaken the argument as it would mean that there is no effect of city location on illness period for people who move. But, this is not the reasoning why I would reject this. The reason is that it shows pattern of people moving from Nevada to New York, but our family in question is moving the other way. There could be many reasons why Nevada people might avoid a longer illness duration.
C As the population of Nevada increases, it is anticipated that people there will be ill with pneumonia for a longer period of time. How much longer? In any case, this is working against strengthening our argument.
D Favorable climate conditions, which mean less incidences of pneumonia, are found in states like Nevada, but not in states such as New York. Hm.. this actually gives me a characteristic of the place which is leading to shorter illness period. This looks like a good choice. Let's hold it.
E Twenty percent of all New Yorkers who move to Nevada and have contracted pneumonia fell ill for less than four weeks. What?! This means that 80% either fell ill for equal to or more than 4 weeks? This is again working against our argument. Incorrect.
Therefore, in my opinion, answer should be D.
14 Jun 2021, 10:18
Kudos
Bookmarks
What is the source? It's impossible to guess the right answer because the writing is so unclear. What "family in Nevada" is the question stem even describing? Is this couple having children, or are we talking about the couple's extended family, their aunts and uncles? And when it goes on to talk about "their children", does that refer to the children of the "family in Nevada" (which is what it technically does refer to, as the sentence is written, though that meaning seems nonsensical) or does it mean the children of the "couple"? And since marriage and having family are not inherently related, what are we meant to read into the word "newlywed"?
I'm guessing we're meant to compare two situations: identical children get pneumonia in New York and in Nevada. The argument concludes the pneumonia would resolve more quickly in Nevada. So the argument is assuming it's something about Nevada that helps (rather than, say, some difference in genetic characteristics among people born in NY and Nevada). Most answers do the exact opposite of what we want, though B would be a good answer if it said the opposite of what it does, and E would be good if the percentage were much, much higher than 20%. Only D seems even remotely plausible. But it is not a good answer either:
D Favorable climate conditions, which mean less incidences of pneumonia, are found in states like Nevada, but not in states such as New York.
First, "incidence" means "probability" in an epidemiological context, so pluralizing it is wrong - you would not say there is "less probabilities of pneumonia" -- and if pluralizing were correct, it should say "fewer" rather than "less". But more importantly, this is precisely the kind of answer I would expect to be incorrect in an actual GMAT question. Answer D says pneumonia is rarer in Nevada. It doesn't say anything about how severe pneumonia is when you get it in Nevada, and that's what the conclusion of the argument is about: how long your pneumonia case lasts, not how hard it is to get in the first place. Unless we introduce the assumption "in places where pneumonia is rare, cases of pneumonia don't last very long" (an assumption I don't see we have any justification for), answer D is not helpful here either.
So I don't think this question makes much sense.
I'm guessing we're meant to compare two situations: identical children get pneumonia in New York and in Nevada. The argument concludes the pneumonia would resolve more quickly in Nevada. So the argument is assuming it's something about Nevada that helps (rather than, say, some difference in genetic characteristics among people born in NY and Nevada). Most answers do the exact opposite of what we want, though B would be a good answer if it said the opposite of what it does, and E would be good if the percentage were much, much higher than 20%. Only D seems even remotely plausible. But it is not a good answer either:
D Favorable climate conditions, which mean less incidences of pneumonia, are found in states like Nevada, but not in states such as New York.
First, "incidence" means "probability" in an epidemiological context, so pluralizing it is wrong - you would not say there is "less probabilities of pneumonia" -- and if pluralizing were correct, it should say "fewer" rather than "less". But more importantly, this is precisely the kind of answer I would expect to be incorrect in an actual GMAT question. Answer D says pneumonia is rarer in Nevada. It doesn't say anything about how severe pneumonia is when you get it in Nevada, and that's what the conclusion of the argument is about: how long your pneumonia case lasts, not how hard it is to get in the first place. Unless we introduce the assumption "in places where pneumonia is rare, cases of pneumonia don't last very long" (an assumption I don't see we have any justification for), answer D is not helpful here either.
So I don't think this question makes much sense.
