Paradox!

This topic has expert replies
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1083
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 9:38 pm
Thanked: 127 times
Followed by:14 members

Paradox!

by gmat_perfect » Mon Aug 16, 2010 10:37 am
The population of Megacity, a sprawling metropolis in Remsland, has grown at a fairly steady rate for over a century. A hundred years ago, poor sanitation in the city caused high mortality rates among the city's inhabitants, and what fueled the population increase was immigration from rural villages. This immigration has continued and even increased. Moreover, in recent decades, city sanitation has improved enormously. Yet the city's population growth has not significantly accelerated.

Which of the following, if true, most helps to explain why the city's population growth rate has not changed?

(A) Mortality rates that were associated with poor sanitation in Megacity a hundred years ago were orders of magnitude higher than are mortality rates associated with vehicular traffic, which is currently a major cause of death in the city.
(B) For several decades, Megacity, as distinct from the countryside, has had a steadily declining birth rate.
(C) Cities smaller than Megacity have also experienced sustained population growth.
(D) The great majority of immigrants to Remsland settle in Megacity, at least initially.
(E) Megacity has long offered better employment prospects than most rural areas.

[spoiler]OA: B[/spoiler]

What is the problem in A?

Thanks.

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 659
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 8:12 am
Thanked: 32 times
Followed by:3 members

by Gurpinder » Mon Aug 16, 2010 10:51 am
gmat_perfect wrote: (A) Mortality rates that were associated with poor sanitation in Megacity a hundred years ago were orders of magnitude higher than are mortality rates associated with vehicular traffic, which is currently a major cause of death in the city.
(B) For several decades, Megacity, as distinct from the countryside, has had a steadily declining birth rate.
(C) Cities smaller than Megacity have also experienced sustained population growth.
(D) The great majority of immigrants to Remsland settle in Megacity, at least initially.
(E) Megacity has long offered better employment prospects than most rural areas.

[spoiler]OA: B[/spoiler]

What is the problem in A?

Thanks.
(A) suggests that vehicular traffic stuff.....is the major cause of deaths. But the stimulus is saying that the sanitation conditions have increased. We simply want to INFER from the passage and the passage suggests nothing of there being some other disease leading to a stable population. The only inference you can make from the passage is that the city is in good health.

(B) is credible. It suggests that the birth rate is declining which is a true inference IN THE EVENT that sanitation, and immigration to the city are going up.

I hope that helps!
"Do not confuse motion and progress. A rocking horse keeps moving but does not make any progress."
- Alfred A. Montapert, Philosopher.

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1083
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 9:38 pm
Thanked: 127 times
Followed by:14 members

by gmat_perfect » Mon Aug 16, 2010 11:30 am
Gurpinder wrote:
gmat_perfect wrote: (A) Mortality rates that were associated with poor sanitation in Megacity a hundred years ago were orders of magnitude higher than are mortality rates associated with vehicular traffic, which is currently a major cause of death in the city.
(B) For several decades, Megacity, as distinct from the countryside, has had a steadily declining birth rate.
(C) Cities smaller than Megacity have also experienced sustained population growth.
(D) The great majority of immigrants to Remsland settle in Megacity, at least initially.
(E) Megacity has long offered better employment prospects than most rural areas.

[spoiler]OA: B[/spoiler]

What is the problem in A?

Thanks.
(A) suggests that vehicular traffic stuff.....is the major cause of deaths. But the stimulus is saying that the sanitation conditions have increased. We simply want to INFER from the passage and the passage suggests nothing of there being some other disease leading to a stable population. The only inference you can make from the passage is that the city is in good health.

(B) is credible. It suggests that the birth rate is declining which is a true inference IN THE EVENT that sanitation, and immigration to the city are going up.

I hope that helps!
Thanks for the explanation.
I got it.

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1255
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 2:08 pm
Location: St. Louis
Thanked: 312 times
Followed by:90 members

by Tani » Mon Aug 16, 2010 3:46 pm
The population of Megacity, a sprawling metropolis in Remsland, has grown at a fairly steady rate for over a century. A hundred years ago, poor sanitation in the city caused high mortality rates among the city's inhabitants, and what fueled the population increase was immigration from rural villages. This immigration has continued and even increased. Moreover, in recent decades, city sanitation has improved enormously. Yet the city's population growth has not significantly accelerated.

Which of the following, if true, most helps to explain why the city's population growth rate has not changed?

(A) Mortality rates that were associated with poor sanitation in Megacity a hundred years ago were orders of magnitude higher than are mortality rates associated with vehicular traffic, which is currently a major cause of death in the city. The stimulus does not actually tell us that fewer people are dying due to sanitation, only that sanitation is better than it used to be.


(B) For several decades, Megacity, as distinct from the countryside, has had a steadily declining birth rate. A lower birth rate would offset immigration - this works.

(C) Cities smaller than Megacity have also experienced sustained population growth. Other cities are out of scope


(D) The great majority of immigrants to Remsland settle in Megacity, at least initially. Irrelevant.

(E) Megacity has long offered better employment prospects than most rural areas. Better employment would increase immigration - 180.
Tani Wolff

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 79
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2015 3:56 am
Followed by:1 members
GMAT Score:750

by Nina1987 » Fri Jul 08, 2016 10:59 pm
Tani/Other Experts,
Regarding choice A: why would not increased mortality due to accidents off set increasing immigration? Tks

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 2131
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2014 9:26 am
Location: https://martymurraycoaching.com/
Thanked: 955 times
Followed by:140 members
GMAT Score:800

by MartyMurray » Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:50 am
Nina1987 wrote:Tani/Other Experts,
Regarding choice A: why would not increased mortality due to accidents off set increasing immigration? Tks
Increased mortality due to crashes would to some degree offset increasing immigration, but notice the following.

What is said in the first and second sentence of the prompt indicates that even when poor sanitation caused high mortality rates, the population was increasing.

Then answer choice A indicates that mortality rates due to crashes are lower than mortality rates due to poor sanitation were.

So not only did the population increase when poor sanitation caused a high mortality rate, but also crashes are offsetting immigration less than poor sanitation did.
Marty Murray
Perfect Scoring Tutor With Over a Decade of Experience
MartyMurrayCoaching.com
Contact me at [email protected] for a free consultation.