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

Redeem

Funds for Malicitis

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 104
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 1:25 pm
Thanked: 11 times
Followed by:3 members

Funds for Malicitis

by MakeUrTimeCount » Thu Dec 15, 2011 10:21 am
A rare disease, malicitis, is being diagnosed with increasing frequency. The number of cases reported this year is more than double the number reported four years ago. The government should now allocate more funds for treatment and prevention of malicitis.

All of the following, if true, would weaken the conclusion except

A. funds already available for research in malicitis are currently under-utilized
B. a new test employed for the first time this year detects malicitis at a considerably earlier stage in the development of the disease
C. the number of cases reported this year represents the same fraction of the population as reported in all of the last five years
D. a committee of experts reviewed the funding four years ago
E. a private foundation has committed sufficient funds to cover treatment and prevention needs as well as research for the next five years

OA After discussion.
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
User avatar
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 15
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2011 12:41 pm

by Shalabh7 » Thu Dec 15, 2011 11:55 am
I would go with option C. What this option says is that the ratio of 'people diagnosed with malicious' to 'the total population' has not changed. But as we know that the number of people diagnosed with it has doubled. So in sheer numbers, the people who require treatment have increased and thus requiring more funding.

Therefore, it does not weaken the author's conclusion.

Hope I got it right.
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 641
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2011 1:15 am
Thanked: 149 times
Followed by:32 members
GMAT Score:760

by avik.ch » Thu Dec 15, 2011 10:43 pm
IMO : D

All except D weakens the argument.
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 296
Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 5:10 am
Location: Vietnam
Thanked: 10 times
Followed by:5 members

by tuanquang269 » Fri Dec 16, 2011 1:24 am
MakeUrTimeCount wrote:A rare disease, malicitis, is being diagnosed with increasing frequency. The number of cases reported this year is more than double the number reported four years ago. The government should now allocate more funds for treatment and prevention of malicitis.

All of the following, if true, would weaken the conclusion except

C. the number of cases reported this year represents the same fraction of the population as reported in all of the last five years
D. a committee of experts reviewed the funding four years ago

OA After discussion.
IMO D. In choice C, I think the author of the argument assumed that the fund for the medical treatment based on proportionately with the percentage of population. So, choice C is weaken the argument.
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 104
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 1:25 pm
Thanked: 11 times
Followed by:3 members

by MakeUrTimeCount » Fri Dec 16, 2011 10:02 am
OA is D

@Shalabh: First of all the disease if a rare disease. Secondly, although the population is incresing, the fraction is same i.e. the number of cases are increasing constantly. It's not that much alarming.

Hope above make sense.
Top
Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 7
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2011 7:30 pm

by Bharath Krishnan » Fri Dec 16, 2011 11:19 am
Please note that we are asked to choose an answer option that will preserve the essence of the conclusion stated in the reasoning.

A. funds already available for research in malicitis are currently under-utilized
This statement weakens the conclusion, meaning the government need not revise the fund allocation.

B. a new test employed for the first time this year detects malicitis at a considerably earlier stage in the development of the disease
Weakens the argument, research is already complete and thus the government need not allocate funds.

C. the number of cases reported this year represents the same fraction of the population as reported in all of the last five years
the severity of the disease does not pose a major problem to the population. This weakens the premise

D. a committee of experts reviewed the funding four years ago
this gives statement reiterates the fact that the fund allocation was reviewed four years ago and at present, the severity of the disease has doubled and hence requires government intervention

E. a private foundation has committed sufficient funds to cover treatment and prevention needs as well as research for the next five years
not stated in the argument and does not support the conclusion as well

Thanx
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1