CR Question

This topic has expert replies
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 84
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2011 8:29 am
Thanked: 5 times
Followed by:1 members

CR Question

by crimson2283 » Sun Feb 06, 2011 10:07 am
Despite improvements in treatment for asthma, the death rate from this disease has doubled during the past decade from its previous rate. Two possible explanations for this increase have been offered. First, the recording of deaths due to asthma has become more widespread and accurate in the past decade than it had been previously. Second, there has been an increase in urban pollution. However, since the rate of deaths due to asthma has increased dramatically even in cities with long-standing, comprehensive medical records and with little or no urban pollution, one must instead conclude that the cause of increased deaths is the use of bronchial inhalers by asthma sufferers to relieve their symptoms.

Each of the following, if true, provides support to the argument EXCEPT:
(A) Urban populations have doubled in the past decade.
(B) Records of asthma deaths are as accurate for the past twenty years as for the past ten years.
(C) Evidence suggests that bronchial inhalers make the lungs more sensitive to irritation by airborne pollen.
(D) By temporarily relieving the symptoms of asthma, inhalers encourage sufferers to avoid more beneficial measures.
(E) Ten years ago bronchial inhalers were not available as an asthma treatment.
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

Legendary Member
Posts: 2330
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 5:14 am
Thanked: 56 times
Followed by:26 members

by mundasingh123 » Sun Feb 06, 2011 10:24 am
Is it LSAT ?
I Seek Explanations Not Answers

Legendary Member
Posts: 1578
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2008 1:49 am
Thanked: 82 times
Followed by:9 members
GMAT Score:720

by maihuna » Sun Feb 06, 2011 11:30 am
IMO : A doubling of population has nothing to do with rate, so it is right on money, doing nothing about the argument, leave apart weakening/strenghtening it.

B , though looks like misleading by mentioning two decades, it seems to be an right option as it says accuracy has not gone for a toss, which kills an alternate explanation and so supports the argument.

C D E obviously strenthen the argument.
Charged up again to beat the beast :)

User avatar
Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2010 9:18 pm

by ranjithvaddella » Sun Feb 06, 2011 10:42 pm
its B. somebody correct me if Im wrong.

A supports the premise 'Second, there has been an increase in urban pollution'

C, though it directly does not support the conclusion it can be contender as it caused lunges irritation. ( there is no premise in the stimuli that lunges irritaion cause death) and supports the argument. So it can be contender.

D Supports the argument

E Supports the premise presented that ' the death rate from this disease has doubled during the past decade from its previous rate'.

B weakens the argument 'accurate in the past decade than it had been previously'

Hence, in my opinion B is the correct answer.