GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 14 Oct 2019, 11:06

### 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

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# While is true that effects of disease have been overlooked in its hist

 new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics
Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Current Student
Joined: 06 Jul 2016
Posts: 38
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, General Management
GMAT 1: 610 Q49 V25
WE: General Management (Energy and Utilities)
While is true that effects of disease have been overlooked in its hist  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 Nov 2016, 13:14
2
1
13
00:00

Difficulty:

95% (hard)

Question Stats:

48% (02:05) correct 52% (02:23) wrong based on 332 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

While is true that effects of disease have been overlooked in its history, the ancient kingdom of People X began to collapse because of the violence, not the new diseases, brought by explorers. This much is evident from the fact that the kingdom first fell in the south, in the region under attack by explorers, and only later in the northern part of the kingdom.

Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen the argument above?

A. There was a pause in violence after the explorers' attack on the south and before the attack on the north, and during this period, the condition of the kingdom did not appreciably worsen.

B. The northern portion of the kingdom was not substantially weakened until after the explorers attacked that region.

C. The north of the kingdom was well armed and well fortified, whereas the south was vulnerable to attack.

D. The south and the north of the kingdom were equally susceptible to the new diseases introduced into the region.

E. Armed conflict took more lives of People X than did disease.
Current Student
Joined: 09 Jul 2016
Posts: 25
Re: While is true that effects of disease have been overlooked in its hist  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Nov 2016, 05:47
It should be D. As North and South part of the kingdom are equally susceptible to the disease, so they should fall down at the same time. But the argument mentions that " the kingdom first fell in the south, in the region under attack by explorers, and only later in the northern part of the kingdom ", which means it is the violence and not the disease.
Manager
Joined: 14 Oct 2012
Posts: 160
Re: While is true that effects of disease have been overlooked in its hist  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Nov 2016, 13:21
Reading the question: we read about the ancient kingdom of People X. The conclusion here is that violence, not disease, brought them down. The evidence concerns the order in which the parts of the country collapsed. To strengthen this argument, we'll want to strengthen the logical connection between the geographical evidence and the attribution of violence over disease. For example, maybe disease also struck first in the part that fell first to violence? That would undermine the connection. We look for something relevant to this geography-attribution question.

Applying the filter: choice (D) is pretty close to the specific prediction we had in mind. The other answer choices are tempting. Choices (C) and (E) both give comparisons that are not material to whether violence or disease initiated the problems. We focus on that phrase in the prompt--began the attack. Choices (A) and (B) are talking about beginning the attack, so they are both out.

Logical proof: we can analyze choice (D) by extreme cases. If the regions of the country were equally susceptible to disease, then it would be less likely that one part would fall first, as was the case. That would, indeed, strengthen the explanation that violence caused the downfall in the south. Consider the contrary: if, say, the south was much more susceptible to the diseases, then the south could have fallen first, due to disease, not violence, and the presence of violence would be a coincidence. So (D) strengthens the argument. The correct answer is (D).
Retired Moderator
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 2861
Location: Germany
Schools: German MBA
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47
WE: Corporate Finance (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)
Re: While is true that effects of disease have been overlooked in its hist  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Dec 2016, 11:39
The OA is correct and explanations provided in the thread appear sufficient. If there are any specific questions, please post them here and then click again on the "Request Expert Reply" button – users are requested not to click the button without posting their queries.
Manager
Joined: 22 Mar 2014
Posts: 100
Location: United States
Concentration: Finance, Operations
GMAT 1: 530 Q45 V20
GPA: 3.91
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Re: While is true that effects of disease have been overlooked in its hist  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Dec 2016, 07:17
sayantanc2k wrote:
The OA is correct and explanations provided in the thread appear sufficient. If there are any specific questions, please post them here and then click again on the "Request Expert Reply" button – users are requested not to click the button without posting their queries.

Hi, I have a doubt with D. It is assumed that when two different locations are susceptible to any disease then both locations should fall down at the same time and since this is not the case, so OA is given as D. But we don't have any information about the size of the kingdom. Say for example, if the kingdom is as big as a country like India, then both the people of Kashmir (The north end) and people of Kanyakumari(The South end) are less likely to get affected simultaneously if the disease first outbreaks in Kashmir(The North end) even though the people of the two locations are susceptible to the disease to the same extent. It will surely take a lot of time for the disease to spread out to the Southern end from the Northern end and it might be possible that by the time the Southern end gets affected, the Northern end would already have been collapsed.

In my opinion, A is the best choice because this option is saying that when there was no violence, there was no significant change in population. So this indicates that violence might be the only reason for the collapse of the kingdom.
Retired Moderator
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 2861
Location: Germany
Schools: German MBA
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47
WE: Corporate Finance (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)
Re: While is true that effects of disease have been overlooked in its hist  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Dec 2016, 08:09
1
arunavamunshi1988 wrote:
sayantanc2k wrote:
The OA is correct and explanations provided in the thread appear sufficient. If there are any specific questions, please post them here and then click again on the "Request Expert Reply" button – users are requested not to click the button without posting their queries.

Hi, I have a doubt with D. It is assumed that when two different locations are susceptible to any disease then both locations should fall down at the same time and since this is not the case, so OA is given as D. But we don't have any information about the size of the kingdom. Say for example, if the kingdom is as big as a country like India, then both the people of Kashmir (The north end) and people of Kanyakumari(The South end) are less likely to get affected simultaneously if the disease first outbreaks in Kashmir(The North end) even though the people of the two locations are susceptible to the disease to the same extent. It will surely take a lot of time for the disease to spread out to the Southern end from the Northern end and it might be possible that by the time the Southern end gets affected, the Northern end would already have been collapsed.

In my opinion, A is the best choice because this option is saying that when there was no violence, there was no significant change in population. So this indicates that violence might be the only reason for the collapse of the kingdom.

Whether the introduced diseases were contagious or not is not the point - it is as well possible that the diseases introduced were not contagious at all. Option D states that both north and south were equally susceptible, thus both should have collapsed approximately at the same time if diseases were the cause, since new diseases were introduced in the whole region ( i.e. in both north and south).

Option A implies that during the pause the condition did not appreciably worsen - however the condition may have worsened, and it is possible that the worsening may have been caused by the new diseases. It is also possible that the new diseases were the real cause of the collapse of the kingdom, though it might might not have worsened the condition so fast as to detect in a significant proportion during the pause. Thus A is not the correct option.
Target Test Prep Representative
Status: Chief Curriculum and Content Architect
Affiliations: Target Test Prep
Joined: 24 Nov 2014
Posts: 618
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Re: While is true that effects of disease have been overlooked in its hist  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

Updated on: 10 Dec 2016, 23:01
1
arunavamunshi1988 wrote:
sayantanc2k wrote:
The OA is correct and explanations provided in the thread appear sufficient. If there are any specific questions, please post them here and then click again on the "Request Expert Reply" button – users are requested not to click the button without posting their queries.

Hi, I have a doubt with D. It is assumed that when two different locations are susceptible to any disease then both locations should fall down at the same time and since this is not the case, so OA is given as D. But we don't have any information about the size of the kingdom. Say for example, if the kingdom is as big as a country like India, then both the people of Kashmir (The north end) and people of Kanyakumari(The South end) are less likely to get affected simultaneously if the disease first outbreaks in Kashmir(The North end) even though the people of the two locations are susceptible to the disease to the same extent. It will surely take a lot of time for the disease to spread out to the Southern end from the Northern end and it might be possible that by the time the Southern end gets affected, the Northern end would already have been collapsed.

In my opinion, A is the best choice because this option is saying that when there was no violence, there was no significant change in population. So this indicates that violence might be the only reason for the collapse of the kingdom.

I totally agree.

D is a lame answer. What does degree of susceptibility add in this context?

From what I can see, the prompt seems to convey that the disease and the violence were both brought by the explorers. Even if the north were just as susceptible as the south, that the disease would not be present in the north before the explorers were makes total sense.

Moreover, even if the disease were not brought by explorers, its showing up in one area before it showed up in another does not depend on the second area being less susceptible. Disease can start spreading in one area before it moves to another, even if both areas are in a way equally susceptible.

D is actually in a way like C, which talks about the susceptibility to attack rather than about the actual events or about the effects of any attack.

A makes more sense than D does. When the violence stopped, the decline stopped, or a least the condition did not "appreciably worsen." Hence the decline was caused by the violence.
_________________

# Marty Murray

Chief Curriculum and Content Architect

Marty@targettestprep.com
122 Reviews

5-star rated online GMAT quant
self study course

See why Target Test Prep is the top rated GMAT quant course on GMAT Club. Read Our Reviews

If you find one of my posts helpful, please take a moment to click on the "Kudos" button.

Originally posted by MartyTargetTestPrep on 08 Dec 2016, 07:42.
Last edited by MartyTargetTestPrep on 10 Dec 2016, 23:01, edited 2 times in total.
Current Student
Joined: 31 May 2015
Posts: 21
Schools: Fisher '19 (A)
Re: While is true that effects of disease have been overlooked in its hist  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Dec 2016, 22:02
So question A is incorrect because of appreciably, rite? I see the reasoning in A quite resembles that of many other correct options (C-->E, no C --> no E), but the word appreciably, as many point out, can break the argument, giving the possibility that Efffect (population declines) still happens while Cause does not, just not to the appreciable extent. So it may slightly weaken the argument (no C--> E still).

But Is this from GMATPrep? Can anybody confirm? If it is really from GMATPrep, i will try to learn from it but if it's not, maybe it's much better to forget the problem.
Target Test Prep Representative
Status: Chief Curriculum and Content Architect
Affiliations: Target Test Prep
Joined: 24 Nov 2014
Posts: 618
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Re: While is true that effects of disease have been overlooked in its hist  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Dec 2016, 22:47
hanminhee wrote:
So question A is incorrect because of appreciably, rite? I see the reasoning in A quite resembles that of many other correct options (C-->E, no C --> no E), but the word appreciably, as many point out, can break the argument, giving the possibility that Efffect (population declines) still happens while Cause does not, just not to the appreciable extent. So it may slightly weaken the argument (no C--> E still).

But Is this from GMATPrep? Can anybody confirm? If it is really from GMATPrep, i will try to learn from it but if it's not, maybe it's much better to forget the problem.

I just checked and, thank goodness, this question is from GMAT Free rather than GMAT Prep. The wording and logic could use some work, and in its current form this question is not of much use.

Too funny. When I thought it to be from GMAT Prep, I was def a bit thrown off. Next time I won't be so quick to believe what the tags say.
_________________

# Marty Murray

Chief Curriculum and Content Architect

Marty@targettestprep.com
122 Reviews

5-star rated online GMAT quant
self study course

See why Target Test Prep is the top rated GMAT quant course on GMAT Club. Read Our Reviews

If you find one of my posts helpful, please take a moment to click on the "Kudos" button.

Manager
Joined: 17 Sep 2017
Posts: 101
Re: While is true that effects of disease have been overlooked in its hist  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Mar 2019, 00:36
Hi, In option D, I get the fact that if we put in an assumption that both the regions were equally prone to the disease carried by conquerors and despite that, if South region fell first then there is some factor other than the disease is in play, which has caused this downfall.

However, the susceptibility of getting the disease only comes into the picture, when there is an agent carrying the disease. However, I do not know, that there were any conquerors who were present in the Northern region when they decided to attack south. Because if the attack and the gateway to the Kindom were through the south, then it is expected that the disease will spread in the south first and then move along the way to the north. And thus, making it difficult for me to reject the argument that not the disease but the violence was the major contributor for the downfall.

Will appreciate your thoughts to help me better understand the flaw in my reasoning.
Re: While is true that effects of disease have been overlooked in its hist   [#permalink] 06 Mar 2019, 00:36
Display posts from previous: Sort by

# While is true that effects of disease have been overlooked in its hist

 new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics

 Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne