Find all School-related info fast with the new School-Specific MBA Forum

 It is currently 29 Jun 2015, 20:49

### GMAT Club Daily Prep

#### Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# A career in dermatology is still a safe bet for medical

Author Message
TAGS:
Intern
Joined: 07 Jul 2012
Posts: 26
GMAT Date: 10-12-2012
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 10 [1] , given: 30

A career in dermatology is still a safe bet for medical [#permalink]  25 Sep 2012, 06:17
1
KUDOS
4
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

75% (hard)

Question Stats:

47% (02:30) correct 53% (01:34) wrong based on 325 sessions
A career in dermatology is still a safe bet for medical students. In the US., the number of cases of skin cancer linked to UV radiation in sunlight has remained relatively constant every year even though far fewer adults are intentionally exposing themselves to UV sunlight now than were doing so at the height of the suntan craze 20yrs ago

each of the following,if true could explain the relative stability in the incidence of skin cancer each year despite the decrease in intentional exposure to UV sunlight EXCEPT:

a) bcause of decreasing levels of ozone in the upper atmosphere,more people are now exposed accidently to excessive UV sunlight
b) people who continue to intentionally expose themselves to UV sunlight are absorbing larger doses of harmful radiation than the average suntanner did in the past
c) levels of UV radiation from sources other than sunlight are increasing every year
d) while fewer women are intentionally exposing themselves to UV sunlight,the number of men doing so has increased significantly

Can someone explain why B is wrong?
My logic is,
Say
earlier there were
Total number of people = 100 ( 60 intentionally exposing +40 other reasons ).

Now
Total number of people =100 ( 20 intentionally exposing +80 other reasons )

So ,now these 20 people can expose as much they can, but they cannot effect the total number.
Atleast they can not increase the total number.
So, Why B is wrong, when it is giving us information about intensity of exposure.
And cancer rate is no where in ques. Argument is only about total number of cases.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 5673
Location: Pune, India
Followers: 1411

Kudos [?]: 7299 [6] , given: 186

Re: A career in dermatology Kaplan 800 [#permalink]  26 Sep 2012, 03:50
6
KUDOS
Expert's post
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
rohitgarg wrote:
A career in dermatology is still a safe bet for medical students. In the US., the number of cases of skin cancer linked to UV radiation in sunlight has remained relatively constant every year even though far fewer adults are intentionally exposing themselves to UV sunlight now than were doing so at the height of the suntan craze 20yrs ago

each of the following,if true could explain the relative stability in the incidence of skin cancer each year despite the decrease in intentional exposure to UV sunlight EXCEPT:

a) bcause of decreasing levels of ozone in the upper atmosphere,more people are now exposed accidently to excessive UV sunlight
b) people who continue to intentionally expose themselves to UV sunlight are absorbing larger doses of harmful radiation than the average suntanner did in the past
c) levels of UV radiation from sources other than sunlight are increasing every year
d) while fewer women are intentionally exposing themselves to UV sunlight,the number of men doing so has increased significantly

Can someone explain why B is wrong?
My logic is,
Say
earlier there were
Total number of people = 100 ( 60 intentionally exposing +40 other reasons ).

Now
Total number of people =100 ( 20 intentionally exposing +80 other reasons )

So ,now these 20 people can expose as much they can, but they cannot effect the total number.
Atleast they can not increase the total number.
So, Why B is wrong, when it is giving us information about intensity of exposure.
And cancer rate is no where in ques. Argument is only about total number of cases.

If I were to just skim through the options and option D was not there, I might think that B is correct too. But on further analysis, you find that D is the correct answer. Let's see why.

Argument:
- the number of cases of skin cancer linked to UV radiation in sunlight has remained relatively constant
- far fewer adults are intentionally exposing themselves to UV sunlight now

This is a paradox, right? How will you explain it? By saying that either
1. people getting exposed unintentionally is increasing or
2. the incidence of cancer among people getting intentionally exposed is increasing (I will explain what this means soon)

Options A and C basically give you the reason 1 above.

Option B gives you the reason 2 above.
Say, out of 100 total people, 40 were intentionally exposing themselves to UV rays. Incidence of cancer among these 40 was 10% i.e. 4 of them used to get afflicted by cancer.
Now, say only 20 intentionally expose themselves but take much higher doses. Say now the incidence of cancer among them is 25% (increased because of higher dose). Again 4 people will get afflicted.
So B can also explain the paradox.

But D cannot. Proportion of men and women is immaterial. The overall number of people exposing themselves to UV rays intentionally has certainly decreased as given in the argument.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
My Blog

Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for $199 Veritas Prep Reviews Manager Status: Fighting again to Kill the GMAT devil Joined: 02 Jun 2009 Posts: 137 Location: New Delhi WE 1: Oil and Gas - Engineering & Construction Followers: 1 Kudos [?]: 35 [1] , given: 48 Re: A career in dermatology Kaplan 800 [#permalink] 25 Sep 2012, 07:07 1 This post received KUDOS Look at [B] from a mathematical point of view - for example in DS questions when we are talking about a unique value of X, and the equation is quadratic, you would know that X could take 2 values so you cannot find a unique X. Similarly here, when it qualifies people {who intentionally continue to expose themselves to UV sunlight and thus absorb larger doses of harmful radiation than the average suntanner did in the past} - You do not know what was the number of people doing it in past and what is the number of people doing that intentional exposure today. So when the question asks which of these if true could explain the relative stability in the incidence of skin cancer each year? [B] would hang in between. But [D] solves the puzzle pretty clearly. _________________ Giving Kudos, is a great Way to Help the GC Community Kudos Manager Status: Re-take.. The OG just loves me too much. Joined: 18 Jun 2012 Posts: 67 Location: India GMAT 1: 600 Q44 V29 WE: Information Technology (Consulting) Followers: 4 Kudos [?]: 29 [1] , given: 48 Re: A career in dermatology Kaplan 800 [#permalink] 25 Sep 2012, 09:05 1 This post received KUDOS methevoid wrote: Look at [B] from a mathematical point of view - for example in DS questions when we are talking about a unique value of X, and the equation is quadratic, you would know that X could take 2 values so you cannot find a unique X. Similarly here, when it qualifies people {who intentionally continue to expose themselves to UV sunlight and thus absorb larger doses of harmful radiation than the average suntanner did in the past} - You do not know what was the number of people doing it in past and what is the number of people doing that intentional exposure today. So when the question asks which of these if true could explain the relative stability in the incidence of skin cancer each year? [B] would hang in between. But [D] solves the puzzle pretty clearly. Looks to me that option A answers the question better. Option D talks about number of men and women, both of whom should safely qualify as adults. And the passage does make a statement saying that the number of adults going in for an intentional exposure to UV due to sun-tan has decreased. _________________ Live Life the Way YOU Love It !! GmatPrep1 [10/09/2012] : 650 (Q42;V38) - need to make lesser silly mistakes. MGMAT 1 [11/09/2012] : 640 (Q44;V34) - need to improve quant pacing and overcome verbal fatigue. Current Student Affiliations: SAE Joined: 11 Jul 2012 Posts: 514 Location: India Concentration: Strategy, Social Entrepreneurship GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V37 GPA: 3.5 WE: Project Management (Energy and Utilities) Followers: 36 Kudos [?]: 154 [0], given: 269 Re: A career in dermatology Kaplan 800 [#permalink] 26 Sep 2012, 03:33 rohitgarg wrote: Can someone explain why B is wrong? My logic is, Say earlier there were Total number of people = 100 ( 60 intentionally exposing +40 other reasons ). Now Total number of people =100 ( 20 intentionally exposing +80 other reasons ) So ,now these 20 people can expose as much they can, but they cannot effect the total number. Atleast they can not increase the total number. So, Why B is wrong, when it is giving us information about intensity of exposure. And cancer rate is no where in ques. Argument is only about total number of cases. Hi Rohit You are missing a point. Only exposure does not cause cancer, large amount of doses cause cancer. Now read option B again. In the past the same people who intentionally exposed themselves were taking less doses, so no cancer to them. But now the people expose themselves for larger amount of time, so cancer. Hope it helps ! _________________ First Attempt 710 - first-attempt-141273.html Current Student Affiliations: SAE Joined: 11 Jul 2012 Posts: 514 Location: India Concentration: Strategy, Social Entrepreneurship GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V37 GPA: 3.5 WE: Project Management (Energy and Utilities) Followers: 36 Kudos [?]: 154 [0], given: 269 Re: A career in dermatology Kaplan 800 [#permalink] 26 Sep 2012, 03:35 rohitgarg wrote: Can someone explain why B is wrong? My logic is, Say earlier there were Total number of people = 100 ( 60 intentionally exposing +40 other reasons ). Now Total number of people =100 ( 20 intentionally exposing +80 other reasons ) So ,now these 20 people can expose as much they can, but they cannot effect the total number. Atleast they can not increase the total number. So, Why B is wrong, when it is giving us information about intensity of exposure. And cancer rate is no where in ques. Argument is only about total number of cases. Hi Rohit You are missing a point. Only exposure does not cause cancer, large amount of doses cause cancer. Now read option B again. In the past the same people who intentionally exposed themselves were taking less doses, so no cancer to them. But now the people expose themselves for longer of time, so cancer. Hope it helps ! _________________ First Attempt 710 - first-attempt-141273.html GMAT Club Legend Joined: 01 Oct 2013 Posts: 4346 Followers: 468 Kudos [?]: 98 [0], given: 0 Re: A career in dermatology is still a safe bet for medical [#permalink] 20 Jan 2014, 02:09 Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot! Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos). Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email. Senior Manager Joined: 07 Apr 2012 Posts: 464 Followers: 1 Kudos [?]: 18 [0], given: 58 Re: A career in dermatology is still a safe bet for medical [#permalink] 30 Jun 2014, 11:03 VeritasPrepKarishma wrote: rohitgarg wrote: A career in dermatology is still a safe bet for medical students. In the US., the number of cases of skin cancer linked to UV radiation in sunlight has remained relatively constant every year even though far fewer adults are intentionally exposing themselves to UV sunlight now than were doing so at the height of the suntan craze 20yrs ago each of the following,if true could explain the relative stability in the incidence of skin cancer each year despite the decrease in intentional exposure to UV sunlight EXCEPT: a) bcause of decreasing levels of ozone in the upper atmosphere,more people are now exposed accidently to excessive UV sunlight b) people who continue to intentionally expose themselves to UV sunlight are absorbing larger doses of harmful radiation than the average suntanner did in the past c) levels of UV radiation from sources other than sunlight are increasing every year d) while fewer women are intentionally exposing themselves to UV sunlight,the number of men doing so has increased significantly Can someone explain why B is wrong? My logic is, Say earlier there were Total number of people = 100 ( 60 intentionally exposing +40 other reasons ). Now Total number of people =100 ( 20 intentionally exposing +80 other reasons ) So ,now these 20 people can expose as much they can, but they cannot effect the total number. Atleast they can not increase the total number. So, Why B is wrong, when it is giving us information about intensity of exposure. And cancer rate is no where in ques. Argument is only about total number of cases. If I were to just skim through the options and option D was not there, I might think that B is correct too. But on further analysis, you find that D is the correct answer. Let's see why. Argument: - the number of cases of skin cancer linked to UV radiation in sunlight has remained relatively constant - far fewer adults are intentionally exposing themselves to UV sunlight now This is a paradox, right? How will you explain it? By saying that either 1. people getting exposed unintentionally is increasing or 2. the incidence of cancer among people getting intentionally exposed is increasing (I will explain what this means soon) Options A and C basically give you the reason 1 above. Option B gives you the reason 2 above. Say, out of 100 total people, 40 were intentionally exposing themselves to UV rays. Incidence of cancer among these 40 was 10% i.e. 4 of them used to get afflicted by cancer. Now, say only 20 intentionally expose themselves but take much higher doses. Say now the incidence of cancer among them is 25% (increased because of higher dose). Again 4 people will get afflicted. So B can also explain the paradox. But D cannot. Proportion of men and women is immaterial. The overall number of people exposing themselves to UV rays intentionally has certainly decreased as given in the argument. Hi Karishma, Don't you find it that option D is actually negating the statements? If it's stated that far less adults are exposing themselves intentionally, than what does it matter if more men are exposing while the number of women is decreasing? Either way, the total number is decreasing... No? Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor Joined: 16 Oct 2010 Posts: 5673 Location: Pune, India Followers: 1411 Kudos [?]: 7299 [0], given: 186 Re: A career in dermatology is still a safe bet for medical [#permalink] 30 Jun 2014, 19:02 Expert's post ronr34 wrote: VeritasPrepKarishma wrote: rohitgarg wrote: A career in dermatology is still a safe bet for medical students. In the US., the number of cases of skin cancer linked to UV radiation in sunlight has remained relatively constant every year even though far fewer adults are intentionally exposing themselves to UV sunlight now than were doing so at the height of the suntan craze 20yrs ago each of the following,if true could explain the relative stability in the incidence of skin cancer each year despite the decrease in intentional exposure to UV sunlight EXCEPT: a) bcause of decreasing levels of ozone in the upper atmosphere,more people are now exposed accidently to excessive UV sunlight b) people who continue to intentionally expose themselves to UV sunlight are absorbing larger doses of harmful radiation than the average suntanner did in the past c) levels of UV radiation from sources other than sunlight are increasing every year d) while fewer women are intentionally exposing themselves to UV sunlight,the number of men doing so has increased significantly Can someone explain why B is wrong? My logic is, Say earlier there were Total number of people = 100 ( 60 intentionally exposing +40 other reasons ). Now Total number of people =100 ( 20 intentionally exposing +80 other reasons ) So ,now these 20 people can expose as much they can, but they cannot effect the total number. Atleast they can not increase the total number. So, Why B is wrong, when it is giving us information about intensity of exposure. And cancer rate is no where in ques. Argument is only about total number of cases. If I were to just skim through the options and option D was not there, I might think that B is correct too. But on further analysis, you find that D is the correct answer. Let's see why. Argument: - the number of cases of skin cancer linked to UV radiation in sunlight has remained relatively constant - far fewer adults are intentionally exposing themselves to UV sunlight now This is a paradox, right? How will you explain it? By saying that either 1. people getting exposed unintentionally is increasing or 2. the incidence of cancer among people getting intentionally exposed is increasing (I will explain what this means soon) Options A and C basically give you the reason 1 above. Option B gives you the reason 2 above. Say, out of 100 total people, 40 were intentionally exposing themselves to UV rays. Incidence of cancer among these 40 was 10% i.e. 4 of them used to get afflicted by cancer. Now, say only 20 intentionally expose themselves but take much higher doses. Say now the incidence of cancer among them is 25% (increased because of higher dose). Again 4 people will get afflicted. So B can also explain the paradox. But D cannot. Proportion of men and women is immaterial. The overall number of people exposing themselves to UV rays intentionally has certainly decreased as given in the argument. Hi Karishma, Don't you find it that option D is actually negating the statements? If it's stated that far less adults are exposing themselves intentionally, than what does it matter if more men are exposing while the number of women is decreasing? Either way, the total number is decreasing... No? You are correct but that is the point - it is an EXCEPT question: "... could explain the relative stability in the incidence of skin cancer despite the decrease in intentional exposure EXCEPT" So (D) does not explain the stability in the incidence. It doesn't matter whether number of men is increasing or number of women is decreasing. The point is that total number is decreasing. So it doesn't explain the stability in the incidence of skin cancer. _________________ Karishma Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor My Blog Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for$199

Veritas Prep Reviews

Intern
Joined: 15 Apr 2013
Posts: 42
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 12 [0], given: 3

Re: A career in dermatology is still a safe bet for medical [#permalink]  14 Jan 2015, 08:56
Hello All,

Can someone please explain why choice E is incorrect in this question

(E) In most victims, skin cancer is linked to exposures to UV sunlight that occurred up to 30 years before the onset of disease.

I can't get how this statement is linked with argument.

Thanks
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 5673
Location: Pune, India
Followers: 1411

Kudos [?]: 7299 [0], given: 186

Re: A career in dermatology is still a safe bet for medical [#permalink]  14 Jan 2015, 22:05
Expert's post
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
vikasbansal227 wrote:
Hello All,

Can someone please explain why choice E is incorrect in this question

(E) In most victims, skin cancer is linked to exposures to UV sunlight that occurred up to 30 years before the onset of disease.

I can't get how this statement is linked with argument.

Thanks

I don't see an option (E) in this question.

But even if it were there, it would explain the stability in the number of skin cancer cases.
The argument tells us that there was a sun tan craze 20 yrs ago. So people exposed their skin to UV rays at that time. Since skin cancer is linked to exposures that occurred up to 30 yrs ago, the people getting skin cancer nowadays could be those who exposed their skin to UV rays 20 yrs ago. That would explain why people are still getting the disease though very few are intentionally exposing their skin to UV rays nowadays.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
My Blog

Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for \$199

Veritas Prep Reviews

Intern
Joined: 15 Apr 2013
Posts: 42
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 12 [0], given: 3

Re: A career in dermatology is still a safe bet for medical [#permalink]  14 Jan 2015, 22:37
Thank you for nice explanation

I was wary excluding this choice while attempting this problem. Since there is insufficient evidence in the argument to suggest that the UV exposure was high enough 30 years back.

Although it is clearly mentioned that suntan craze was there 20 years back, but can we do assumption based extrapolation of this trend unto 30 years? Maybe trend that existed 20 years ago may only started few years back, isn't it.

Thank you.
Vikas
Intern
Joined: 15 Apr 2013
Posts: 42
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 12 [0], given: 3

Re: A career in dermatology is still a safe bet for medical [#permalink]  14 Jan 2015, 22:39
Source of this problem is KAPLAN 800 book.
Re: A career in dermatology is still a safe bet for medical   [#permalink] 14 Jan 2015, 22:39
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
Betting on sports, even for small stakes among friends, is a 12 19 Nov 2011, 11:44
a career in dermatology is still a safe bet for medical 13 14 Jul 2008, 21:36
1 Betting on sports, even for small stakes among friends, is a 11 30 May 2008, 18:26
1 A career in dermatology is still a safe bet for medical 6 10 Nov 2007, 12:03
It can safely be concluded that there are at least as many 9 30 Nov 2006, 12:50
Display posts from previous: Sort by
{"extraction_info": {"found_math": true, "script_math_tex": 0, "script_math_asciimath": 0, "math_annotations": 0, "math_alttext": 0, "mathml": 0, "mathjax_tag": 0, "mathjax_inline_tex": 1, "mathjax_display_tex": 0, "mathjax_asciimath": 0, "img_math": 0, "codecogs_latex": 0, "wp_latex": 0, "mimetex.cgi": 0, "/images/math/codecogs": 0, "mathtex.cgi": 0, "katex": 0, "math-container": 0, "wp-katex-eq": 0, "align": 0, "equation": 0, "x-ck12": 0, "texerror": 0, "math_score": 0.3852827250957489, "perplexity": 4934.5330351691755}, "config": {"markdown_headings": true, "markdown_code": true, "boilerplate_config": {"ratio_threshold": 0.18, "absolute_threshold": 10, "end_threshold": 15, "enable": true}, "remove_buttons": true, "remove_image_figures": true, "remove_link_clusters": true, "table_config": {"min_rows": 2, "min_cols": 3, "format": "plain"}, "remove_chinese": true, "remove_edit_buttons": true, "extract_latex": true}, "warc_path": "s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2015-27/segments/1435375091587.3/warc/CC-MAIN-20150627031811-00082-ip-10-179-60-89.ec2.internal.warc.gz"}