chidcguy wrote:In 1984, almost 2% of humans who were admitted to the hospital ER after suffering scorpion bite in SW united states died from the attack., Ten years later, this figure had jumped to 4%. Clearly, the venom of Scorpion ha sbecome much more toxic to hiumans

(A) Scorpion Pop in SW united states has remained steady since 1984

(B) There have been few innovations in the treatment of Scorpion bite since 1984

(C) Most people who suffer Scorpion bite are inexperienced hikers who are unaware of the best methods to avoid coming in contact with scorpion

(D) Since 1984, people have learned that scorpion bites can be treated in the home as long as they are detected early

(E) People who survive one scorpion bite have a better than average chance of surviving a second one

This question is for what? Weaken? Strengthen? Assumption???
Assuming that it's for weakening...I pick D.

I think its D

D gives an alternate reason for the jump in % figure...

For example there were 100 bites..... and all of them reached hospital and 2 died...

Ten years later, lets say there were still 100 bites, but only 50 of them reached hospital becuase people could treat some cases in home... again 2 died, but the hospital % went yp to 4%...

Me with D too..

chidcguy wrote:In 1984, almost 2% of humans who were admitted to the hospital ER after suffering scorpion bite in SW united states died from the attack., Ten years later, this figure had jumped to 4%. Clearly, the venom of Scorpion ha sbecome much more toxic to humans

Which of the following weakens the conclusion in the above argument?

(A) Scorpion Pop in SW united states has remained steady since 1984

(B) There have been few innovations in the treatment of Scorpion bite since 1984

(C) Most people who suffer Scorpion bite are inexperienced hikers who are unaware of the best methods to avoid coming in contact with scorpion

(D) Since 1984, people have learned that scorpion bites can be treated in the home as long as they are detected early

(E) People who survive one scorpion bite have a better than average chance of surviving a second one

A classic GMAT causation argument.

Effect: death rate from scorpion bites seen in hospitals has risen from 2% to 4%

Author's cause: scorpion venom has become more toxic.

Our prediction: look for an alternative explanation (i.e. another reason why the rate has jumped from 2% to 4%).

As others have noted, only choice (d) gives us another reason why the hospital death rate from scorpion bites has increased - if people who detect it early are treating it at home, then the bites seen in the hospital are more likely to be ones that aren't detected until later on.

The remaining choices are all irrelevant:

(a) don't care about # of scorpions, since we're talking about a death RATE.

(b) would explain why death rate would stay the same, not why it would go up.

(c) explains an increase in the number of bites, but not an increase in the death rate due to bites.

(e) we have no clue how many times people in the stats have been bitten.

I would go for D as well. It seems the best and safest among the rest.