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

It is currently 13 Oct 2019, 20:29

Close

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

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

While proponents argue about the benefits of vaccination for children,

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

Hide Tags

Find Similar Topics 
Manager
Manager
User avatar
G
Joined: 11 Dec 2013
Posts: 121
Location: India
GMAT Date: 03-15-2015
WE: Education (Education)
GMAT ToolKit User
While proponents argue about the benefits of vaccination for children,  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 03 Feb 2019, 22:23
5
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  65% (hard)

Question Stats:

55% (02:17) correct 45% (02:20) wrong based on 140 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

While proponents argue about the benefits of vaccination for children, there is hardly any concrete data to back up their claims. Not only is the efficacy of the vaccines questionable but there are also possible chances that vaccines cause various illnesses such as autism. Children who have been vaccinated have a probability of 0.5% of getting the diseases that they have been vaccinated against while the corresponding probability for all the children across the nation, including the children who have not been vaccinated, is 0.52%. So, there is hardly any improvement in the prevention rate because of vaccination.

In the argument given, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?

A) The first describes the circumstance that the argument as a whole seeks to explain; the second provides a statement that the argument as a whole seeks to establish
B) The first describes the position that the argument as a whole seeks to establish; the second does not dispute that position
C) The first describes the evidence in support of the main conclusion of the argument; the second states that conclusion
D) The first is the position that the argument as a whole opposes; the second provides evidence against the position being opposed.
E) The first and second both state observations that support jointly the conclusion of the argument as a whole.

_________________
KUDOS will increase your score
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 12 Jul 2017
Posts: 9
Re: While proponents argue about the benefits of vaccination for children,  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 04 Feb 2019, 00:46
1
Both first and second are the statements which support the conclusion of the argument.

I chose to go with option E

Posted from my mobile device
Manager
Manager
User avatar
G
Joined: 07 Aug 2017
Posts: 86
Location: India
GPA: 4
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
While proponents argue about the benefits of vaccination for children,  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 04 Feb 2019, 01:41
4d wrote:
While proponents argue about the benefits of vaccination for children, there is hardly any concrete data to back up their claims. Not only is the efficacy of the vaccines questionable but there are also possible chances that vaccines cause various illnesses such as autism. Children who have been vaccinated have a probability of 0.5% of getting the diseases that they have been vaccinated against while the corresponding probability for all the children across the nation, including the children who have not been vaccinated, is 0.52%. So, there is hardly any improvement in the prevention rate because of vaccination.

In the argument given, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?

A) The first describes the circumstance that the argument as a whole seeks to explain; the second provides a statement that the argument as a whole seeks to establish
B) The first describes the position that the argument as a whole seeks to establish; the second does not dispute that position
C) The first describes the evidence in support of the main conclusion of the argument; the second states that conclusion
D) The first is the position that the argument as a whole opposes; the second provides evidence against the position being opposed.
E) The first and second both state observations that support jointly the conclusion of the argument as a whole.



IMO E.

The first bold statement is an opinion, position or observation rather than a circumstance or evidence. So options A and C are out.

Option B - Second statement is providing stats which are aligned to the first statement. Its not disputing but a more proper answer would demand how it is supporting first statement. Option B is out.

Option D - Argument is opposing benefits of vaccination not what's stated in the first statement rather first statement forms the first step towards the opposition.

Option E - First and second statements both can be regarded as observations and based on these observations the conclusion is derived that Vaccination hardly serves as an improvement for preventing diseases.
------------------------------------------------------
Kudos if helpful!
Manager
Manager
User avatar
G
Joined: 11 Dec 2013
Posts: 121
Location: India
GMAT Date: 03-15-2015
WE: Education (Education)
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: While proponents argue about the benefits of vaccination for children,  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 04 Feb 2019, 06:18
In E
How is the second statement a observation ? Its a fact .

Whereas i dont find anything wrong with B
_________________
KUDOS will increase your score
Manager
Manager
User avatar
G
Joined: 07 Aug 2017
Posts: 86
Location: India
GPA: 4
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
While proponents argue about the benefits of vaccination for children,  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 04 Feb 2019, 07:16
4d wrote:
In E
How is the second statement a observation ? Its a fact .

Whereas i dont find anything wrong with B


In option B, it says, 'the second does not dispute that position. In more direct words, it can be interpreted as 'the second agrees with that position'.
So does it agree? No, the two statements can be seen as two separate premises not supporting each other but supporting the conclusion.

Even if you consider second as fact, it fits only in option E.

------------------------------------------------------
Kudos if helpful!
Manager
Manager
User avatar
G
Joined: 11 Dec 2013
Posts: 121
Location: India
GMAT Date: 03-15-2015
WE: Education (Education)
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: While proponents argue about the benefits of vaccination for children,  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 04 Feb 2019, 09:33
GMATMBA5

the second does not dispute that position -- doesn't mean it agrees with that position
_________________
KUDOS will increase your score
Manager
Manager
avatar
S
Joined: 22 May 2017
Posts: 118
Re: While proponents argue about the benefits of vaccination for children,  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 04 Feb 2019, 22:43
4d wrote:
In E
How is the second statement a observation ? Its a fact .

Whereas i dont find anything wrong with B


Even I marked B for same reason

The second statement is like an evidence that there is data to claim that getting vaccinated is not of much use

First stmnt says there is no much data to claim that vaccinations are effective

So as per B stmnt 2 does not oppose the stmnt 1

Experts please help

Posted from my mobile device
_________________
Kudos please if explanation helped
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't stop when you are tired , stop when you are DONE .
Manager
Manager
avatar
G
Joined: 07 Mar 2019
Posts: 58
Location: India
CAT Tests
Re: While proponents argue about the benefits of vaccination for children,  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 12 Jun 2019, 00:09
Hey akshata19 not an expert but here are my two cents

In option B BF1 is not the position the argument as a whole seeks to establish (this line states that BF1 is the main conclusion of the argument) It is not the main conclusion of the argument. This is the main conclusion : So, there is hardly any improvement in the prevention rate because of vaccination..

As for BF2 : the second does not dispute that position : this part is correct

the option is wrong cause of BF1
Manager
Manager
avatar
G
Joined: 07 Mar 2019
Posts: 58
Location: India
CAT Tests
Re: While proponents argue about the benefits of vaccination for children,  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 12 Jun 2019, 00:15
A) The first describes the circumstance that the argument as a whole seeks to explain; the second provides a statement that the argument as a whole seeks to establish.

The first describes the circumstance
Yes. We can call it a current situation or circumstance.
that the argument as a whole seeks to explain;
No. The purpose of the argument is not to explain why there is hardly any data available.
the second provides a statement
Yes.
that the argument as a whole seeks to establish.
No. The second boldface is a fact. The argument cannot establish a fact. The fact is being used to establish the main conclusion.


Thus, this is not the correct answer choice.


B) The first describes the position that the argument as a whole seeks to establish; the second does not dispute that position.

The first describes the position
No. It states an observation and not a conclusion or position taken by someone.
that the argument as a whole seeks to establish;
No. This is not the main conclusion of the argument.
the second does not dispute that position.
Yes. BF2 does not go against BF1 although it is not a conclusion.


Thus, this is not the correct answer choice.


C) The first describes the evidence in support of the main conclusion of the argument; the second states that conclusion.

The first describes the evidence
Yes. Since this fact or observation has been used to support a conclusion, we can call it evidence.
in support of the main conclusion of the argument;
Yes.
the second states that conclusion.
No. BF2 is a fact and not the main conclusion.


Thus, this is not the correct answer choice.


D) The first is the position that the argument as a whole opposes; the second provides evidence against the position being opposed.

The first is the position
No. It is an observation, not a conclusion and so cannot be called a position.
that the argument as a whole opposes;
No. The argument does not go against this observation.
the second provides evidence
Yes. Since this fact or observation has been used to support a conclusion, we can call it evidence.
against the position being opposed.
No. BF2 does not go against BF1.

Thus, this is not the correct answer choice.


E) The first and second both state observations that support jointly the conclusion of the argument as a whole.

The first and second both state observations
Yes. They are facts observed by the author.
that support jointly the conclusion of the argument as a whole.
Yes. They support the main conclusion.


Thus, this is the correct answer choice.
GMAT Club Bot
Re: While proponents argue about the benefits of vaccination for children,   [#permalink] 12 Jun 2019, 00:15
Display posts from previous: Sort by

While proponents argue about the benefits of vaccination for children,

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





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