CR

This topic has expert replies
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 232
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2010 7:09 am
Thanked: 1 times
Followed by:2 members

CR

by ruplun » Thu Jul 08, 2010 11:14 pm
Despite improvements in treatment for asthma, the death rate form 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.


I find the solution to be E as it weaks the conclusion made by the author by citing that the presence of inhalers was also present previously and that also did not increase the symptoms previously...., please let us know ur opinions .
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1893
Joined: Sun May 30, 2010 11:48 pm
Thanked: 215 times
Followed by:7 members

by kvcpk » Fri Jul 09, 2010 1:35 am
IMO A

Premises:
Despite improvements in treatment for asthma, the death rate form 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.

Conclusion:
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.

(A) Urban populations have doubled in the past decade.

By saying that the population has doubled, we are introducing an alternate cause for increase in death rate. Hence it is correct.

(B) Records of asthma deaths are as accurate for the past twenty years as for the past ten years.

This is a contender. But,This will support the argument because:
The argument is that irrespective of the medical records and little or no pollution, there were still deaths
In the conclusion, it says that the medical records are OK.(Comprehensive medical records)
Also, it says little or no pollution. Hence this option is supporting the cause that inhalers would be responsible for increased death rates.

(C) Evidence suggests that bronchial inhalers make the lungs more sensitive to irritation by airborne pollen.

This is clearly supporting the conclusion.

(D) By temporarily relieving the symptoms of asthma, inhalers encourage sufferers to avoid more beneficial measures.

This also supports the argument because, it says that patients are taking temporary relief and because of that Asthma is still piling up on them.

(E) Ten years ago bronchial inhalers were not available as an asthma treatment.

This also supports because if inhalers were not available ten yeas ago, then it means to say that over the next ten years they have only caused the increase in death rates.
I find the solution to be E as it weaks the conclusion made by the author by citing that the presence of inhalers was also present previously and that also did not increase the symptoms previously...., please let us know ur opinions .
Option E says that Inhalers were not present ten year ago.

Hope this helps!!

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1261
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2008 3:46 am
Thanked: 27 times
GMAT Score:570

by reply2spg » Thu Jul 22, 2010 8:25 am
I choose A here. But can you please explain how did you eliminate B???
kvcpk wrote:IMO A

Premises:
Despite improvements in treatment for asthma, the death rate form 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.

Conclusion:
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.

(A) Urban populations have doubled in the past decade.

By saying that the population has doubled, we are introducing an alternate cause for increase in death rate. Hence it is correct.

(B) Records of asthma deaths are as accurate for the past twenty years as for the past ten years.

This is a contender. But,This will support the argument because:
The argument is that irrespective of the medical records and little or no pollution, there were still deaths
In the conclusion, it says that the medical records are OK.(Comprehensive medical records)
Also, it says little or no pollution. Hence this option is supporting the cause that inhalers would be responsible for increased death rates.

(C) Evidence suggests that bronchial inhalers make the lungs more sensitive to irritation by airborne pollen.

This is clearly supporting the conclusion.

(D) By temporarily relieving the symptoms of asthma, inhalers encourage sufferers to avoid more beneficial measures.

This also supports the argument because, it says that patients are taking temporary relief and because of that Asthma is still piling up on them.

(E) Ten years ago bronchial inhalers were not available as an asthma treatment.

This also supports because if inhalers were not available ten yeas ago, then it means to say that over the next ten years they have only caused the increase in death rates.
I find the solution to be E as it weaks the conclusion made by the author by citing that the presence of inhalers was also present previously and that also did not increase the symptoms previously...., please let us know ur opinions .
Option E says that Inhalers were not present ten year ago.

Hope this helps!!
Sudhanshu
(have lot of things to learn from all of you)

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 1031
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2008 1:23 pm
Location: Malibu, CA
Thanked: 716 times
Followed by:255 members
GMAT Score:750

by Brian@VeritasPrep » Thu Jul 22, 2010 9:58 am
Hey reply2spg,

Good question on B - choice B supports the argument by helping to further eliminate that possibility that the increase in asthma deaths is attributable to the better reporting over the last decade. If, as B suggests, the period of 20 to 10 years ago was just as accurate in its asthma reporting as the last ten years was, then something other than "we're just recording more "unknown causes" deaths as "asthma deaths" because of better reporting" must be the cause of the increase in asthma deaths.

Essentially, B supports the conclusion by helping to rule out one of the proposed alternative explanations.

Because A is consistent with one of the alternative explanations, it doesn't support the conclusion, and is therefore correct.
Brian Galvin
GMAT Instructor
Chief Academic Officer
Veritas Prep

Looking for GMAT practice questions? Try out the Veritas Prep Question Bank. Learn More.