BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

MGMAT Book 6 p. 176 #5 Please help!

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 85
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 11:57 am
Thanked: 1 times

MGMAT Book 6 p. 176 #5 Please help!

by OneTwoThreeFour » Sat Jan 29, 2011 5:43 pm
In an attempt to explain the cause of malaria, a deadly infectious disease common in tropical areas, early european settlers in Hong Kong attributed the malady to poisonous gases supposedly emanating from low-lying swampland. Malaria, in fact, translates from the Italian as "bad air." In the 1880s, however, doctors determined that Anopheles mosquitoes were responsible for transmitting the disease to humans after observing that the female of the species can carry a parasitic protozoan that is passed on to unsuspecting humans when a mosquito feasts on a person's blood.

Which function does the statement in boldface fulfill with respect to the argument presented above?

(A) It provides support for the explanation of a particular phenomenon.
(B) It presents evidence which contradicts an established fact.
(C) It offers confirmation of a contested assumption.
(D) It identifies the cause of an erroneous conclusion.
(E) It proposes a new conclusion in place of an earlier conjecture.

Spoiler:

[spoiler]The correct answer is A. I understand why A is the best choice, but I am still trying to figure out the explanation. The boldface represents a premise for, which is used to support the conclusion "doctors determined that Anopheles mosquitoes were responsible for transmitting the disease to humans." However, isn't this statement actually a fact? The author is not pushing for a conclusion in the last sentence, but rather stating a fact that in 1880s that scientists observed a female mosquito carrying a parasitic protozoan.

In addition, compare this to an example of a fact earlier in the chapter:

"Certain genetic diseases are more prevalent among certain ethnic populations. For example, Tay Sachs disease, a usually fatal genetic condition caused by the build-up of the gangliosides in nerve cells, occurs more frequently among Ashkenazi Jews than among the the general population." (p. 16 MGMAT Book 6)
So, my question is, what is the difference between these two?[/spoiler]
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 286
Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2010 5:36 pm
Location: Kolkata, India
Thanked: 11 times
Followed by:5 members

by pesfunk » Sat Jan 29, 2011 8:57 pm
I am too confused with A and B.

A is right saying that this supports the explanation by doctors after 1880.

However, B is also right since the bold statement is an evidence contradicting the previous established fact that malaria was caused due to poisonous gases.

Could someone please help ?

OneTwoThreeFour wrote:In an attempt to explain the cause of malaria, a deadly infectious disease common in tropical areas, early european settlers in Hong Kong attributed the malady to poisonous gases supposedly emanating from low-lying swampland. Malaria, in fact, translates from the Italian as "bad air." In the 1880s, however, doctors determined that Anopheles mosquitoes were responsible for transmitting the disease to humans after observing that the female of the species can carry a parasitic protozoan that is passed on to unsuspecting humans when a mosquito feasts on a person's blood.

Which function does the statement in boldface fulfill with respect to the argument presented above?

(A) It provides support for the explanation of a particular phenomenon.
(B) It presents evidence which contradicts an established fact.
(C) It offers confirmation of a contested assumption.
(D) It identifies the cause of an erroneous conclusion.
(E) It proposes a new conclusion in place of an earlier conjecture.

Spoiler:

[spoiler]The correct answer is A. I understand why A is the best choice, but I am still trying to figure out the explanation. The boldface represents a premise for, which is used to support the conclusion "doctors determined that Anopheles mosquitoes were responsible for transmitting the disease to humans." However, isn't this statement actually a fact? The author is not pushing for a conclusion in the last sentence, but rather stating a fact that in 1880s that scientists observed a female mosquito carrying a parasitic protozoan.

In addition, compare this to an example of a fact earlier in the chapter:

"Certain genetic diseases are more prevalent among certain ethnic populations. For example, Tay Sachs disease, a usually fatal genetic condition caused by the build-up of the gangliosides in nerve cells, occurs more frequently among Ashkenazi Jews than among the the general population." (p. 16 MGMAT Book 6)
So, my question is, what is the difference between these two?[/spoiler]
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 752
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 2:47 am
Thanked: 20 times
Followed by:10 members
GMAT Score:700

by prachich1987 » Sat Jan 29, 2011 10:02 pm
pesfunk wrote:I am too confused with A and B.

A is right saying that this supports the explanation by doctors after 1880.

However, B is also right since the bold statement is an evidence contradicting the previous established fact that malaria was caused due to poisonous gases.

Could someone please help ?

[
Even I chose B when I read the problem for the first time

The problem with B is that it says that the bold faced portion contradicts the ESTABLISHED FACT.
According to MGMAT ,the original belief cannot be labeled as fact.It was a MISTAKEN BELIEF.
& if we assume that the established fact is the later conclusion by the doctors,then the statement doest not contradict the established fact.Rather it supports the conclusion.

I am not really convinced with A
But it is better than B
Thanks!
Prachi
Top
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 28
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 11:22 am
Thanked: 2 times
Followed by:2 members

by Vorskl » Sun Jan 30, 2011 8:37 am
I was actually struggling between A and C.
B is incorrect because the idea that bad air causes malaria is NOT A FACT (it was never proved, but it was just believed to be true), it is a B-world :)

But what is the difference between A and C when?
Top
User avatar
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 27
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2011 2:41 am
Thanked: 2 times

by vatsalroxy » Sun Jan 30, 2011 11:07 am
Infact if i had to chose i wud too chose B coz it directly says about the evidence planted which supports a conclusion that contradicts the earlier fact !

May be RON can pitch in to make it clear. A would have been my second choice but not the first !
Top
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 28
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 11:22 am
Thanked: 2 times
Followed by:2 members

by Vorskl » Sun Jan 30, 2011 11:22 am
Guys who selected B: the belief that malaria is caused by the bad air is not A FACT, it is belief (or superstition or theory - whatever but not the fact).

Consider: before Copernicus people believed the sun rotates around the earth, while in reality that is not true. so believe of the people is whatever but not the fact.
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 85
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 11:57 am
Thanked: 1 times

by OneTwoThreeFour » Sun Jan 30, 2011 5:17 pm
I know the first part of the argument is not a fact, but rather a belief. However my question is for the second part:

In the 1880s, however, doctors determined that Anopheles mosquitoes were responsible for transmitting the disease to humans after observing that the female of the species can carry a parasitic protozoan that is passed on to unsuspecting humans when a mosquito feasts on a person's blood.

Why isn't this a fact? (The answer states that this statement represents a conclusion and a premise for.) This clearly isn't a belief because the doctors were able to observe female mosquitos can carry a parasitic protozoan. Plus, nowhere in the argument does it contends further scientific findings disproved this notion. So we as the reader are accepting that to this day, female mosquitos do carry parasitic protozoan and the protozoan is the cause of transmitting disease.

By the way, C is wrong because the argument does not present any contested arguments on the source of malaria. It is simply stating a brief history on the origins of the beliefs in malaria, ending with actual findings in 1880s.
Top
User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 132
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 12:26 pm
Location: New York City
Thanked: 68 times
Followed by:37 members
GMAT Score:780

by Adam@Knewton » Sun Jan 30, 2011 10:28 pm
This is an interesting question and conversation, so I thought I'd weigh in.

Instead of trying to somehow logically prove the distinction between "fact" and "argument," I want to stress the way the GMAT thinks about Arguments. Some of you may have studied LSAT questions, which are far more grounded in formal logic. On the GMAT, an Argument is composed (I'm sure you've all heard this before but I want us to think about it again) of two pieces: Evidence and Conclusion. This means what we should be looking for is someone (the author, usually) who is making a point, and then a "why" for their point.

Those of you who have pointed out that the "doctors determined..." sentence is a fact are correct in that it's given, as a fact, that doctors in fact made this determination. However, the doctors themselves are making a classic GMAT argument, and the only argument-style sentence in the entire stimulus. The doctors claim one thing because of some piece of evidence -- the bolded statement is this Evidence. Furthermore, it is absolutely right to label the doctors' determination as an "explanation" of malaria; this should lead us directly to (A).

For (B), first of all, as many of you have pointed out, the idea that malaria was "bad air" is never clarified as an "established fact"; second of all, the bolded statement does not actually contradict this fact, but instead provide support for a conclusion (the mosquito conclusion) which itself contradicts the original supposition. For (C), again, the evidence itself only confirms the doctors' conclusion, which is never said to be contested.

I think some of you have read the argument as it if went like this: "Here's one opinion, and now here's another opinion." Instead, the argument is meant to have the following structure: "Here's a problem (the clearly wrong/bad explanation of malaria, and here's the solution (the correct explanation), and here's the evidence for the correct explanation." It really helps to identify when the GMAT is giving you an Argument: A theory, and a "why" for that theory. We get this in the final sentence, we see the doctors' argument as a Conclusion/Evidence pair, and we can answer the question.

The more we can anticipate what the GMAT will give us and recognize when they're falling into their classic patterns, and the less we have to reason from scratch on each question, the better we'll do on CR. :)
Prep Smarter, Score Higher
www.knewton.com
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 85
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 11:57 am
Thanked: 1 times

by OneTwoThreeFour » Mon Jan 31, 2011 10:24 am
Thanks Adam! That was very insightful.
Top

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 3380
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 1:20 am
Thanked: 2256 times
Followed by:1535 members
GMAT Score:800

by lunarpower » Tue Feb 01, 2011 6:31 am
adam's advice above is pretty much on point.
pesfunk wrote:However, B is also right since the bold statement is an evidence contradicting the previous established fact that malaria was caused due to poisonous gases.
the problem here is that you don't seem to be sufficiently aware of what "established fact" means -- this means, well, a FACT that is KNOWN TO BE TRUE.
it's clear from the context of the passage that "malaria is caused by poisonous gases" is an old hypothesis that was actually proven to be FALSE. therefore, it's definitely not an "established fact".

if something is an "established fact", it should be absolutely impossible to contradict this fact (this is what "fact" means -- facts don't have exceptions).
The correct answer is A. I understand why A is the best choice, but I am still trying to figure out the explanation. The boldface represents a premise for, which is used to support the conclusion "doctors determined that Anopheles mosquitoes were responsible for transmitting the disease to humans." However, isn't this statement actually a fact? The author is not pushing for a conclusion in the last sentence, but rather stating a fact that in 1880s that scientists observed a female mosquito carrying a parasitic protozoan.
well, the exact language of that answer choice is "explanation of a phenomenon"; these two words are very easily justified: the "phenomenon" is malaria, and the "explanation" is the whole anopheles mosquito thing.
whether that explanation is established as fact (vs. still a conjecture) is immaterial -- it's definitely an explanation, which is all that's required by the answer choice.

--

in response to your actual question (which, again, isn't important here because of the wording of the answer choice) --

also note that certain things (like this one) can be hypotheses at the time when they are first propounded, but can be established as facts later.
for instance, about a century ago, robert millikan performed his "oil drop experiment" to ascertain the charge on an electron. at that time, millikan CLAIMED (this was still a claim back then, since there wasn't much evidence yet) that the charge on an electron was about 1.6 x 10^-19 coulombs.
this is now well established, beyond any doubt, as a scientific fact -- but that doesn't change the fact that it was a "claim"/"conclusion" at the time when millikan conducted the experiment. the same is true for the anopheles mosquito thing here -- that's established as a fact now, but it was a claim/conclusion/hypothesis at the time of the discovery referenced in the passage.
Ron has been teaching various standardized tests for 20 years.

--

Pueden hacerle preguntas a Ron en castellano
Potete chiedere domande a Ron in italiano
On peut poser des questions à Ron en français
Voit esittää kysymyksiä Ron:lle myös suomeksi

--

Quand on se sent bien dans un vêtement, tout peut arriver. Un bon vêtement, c'est un passeport pour le bonheur.

Yves Saint-Laurent

--

Learn more about ron
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 85
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 11:57 am
Thanked: 1 times

by OneTwoThreeFour » Thu Feb 03, 2011 12:22 pm
Thanks Ron.
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1