In Rubaria, excellent health care is available ...

[commit.gmat]

In Rubaria, excellent health care is available to virtually the entire population, whereas very few people in Terland receive adequate medical care. Yet, although the death rate for most diseases is higher in Terland than in Rubaria, the percentage of the male population that dies from prostate cancer is significantly higher in Rubaria than in Terland.

Which of the following, if true, most helps to explain the disparity between the prostate cancer death rate in Rubaria and Terland?

A. Effective treatment of prostate cancer in its early stages generally requires medical techniques available in Rubaria but not in Terland.
B. Most men who have prostate cancer are older than the average life expectancy for inhabitants of Terland.
C. Being in poor general health does not increase one's risk of developing prostate cancer.
D. It is possible to decrease one's risk of getting prostate cancer by eating certain kinds of foods, and such foods are more readily available in Rubaria than in Terland.
E. Among men in Rubaria, the death rate from prostate cancer is significantly higher for those who do not take full advantage of Rubaria's health care system than for those who do.

I could eliminate A, D, and E. Could not decide between B and C, although C seems to imply that if this is true then death rates should be same in both the places. Doesn't seem to explain the disparity. But, I couldn't see the logical reasoning behind B either.

Answer: B (highlight this row)

Edited:

Source: Paper tests

I believe I posted this question in the wrong section. Can someone please move it.

Thanks

[cfaking]

tough one

B. Most men who have prostate cancer are older than the average life expectancy for inhabitants of Terland.--that gives us an alternate reason..so men in Terland B dying due to other reason-old age?

[RonPurewal]

hi -

you need to pick a choice that actually points out a salient difference, regarding prostate cancer, between the two countries.
furthermore, that difference must register in the correct direction: i.e., the evidence must indicate that prostate cancer is LESS likely to be found in terland.

choice (c) does no such thing. in fact, choice (c) is perfectly neutral, giving absolutely no reason to suspect different levels of prostate cancer in the two countries. (first, "does not increase one's risk" implies equality of risk, not a disparity in either direction. second, this statement has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on differences between the two countries mentioned in the problem.)

choice (b), on the other hand, mentions a factor that is DIRECTLY responsible for the relatively low rate of prostate cancer in terland.
namely, if people in terland don't live long enough to GET prostate cancer in the first place, then you aren't going to see a lot of prostate cancer there. and there you have it.

--

by the way, this problem is an exact analogue of the real-world situation with such maladies as heart disease and breast/prostate cancer, which generally strike older individuals.
there are often strikingly low rates of death from those maladies in countries with otherwise horrible public health (such as sub-saharan african countries). this isn't due to better prostate/heart/breast health in those countries, though; it's simply because most people in those countries don't live anywhere near long enough to get these problems in the first place.

[jp.jprasanna]

Hi Ron - Could you please help me eliminate option E?

Among men in Rubaria, the death rate from prostate cancer is significantly higher for those who do not take full advantage of Rubaria’s health care system than for those who do.

Is it because it talks only about Rubaria, even if option E were true this answer choice still doesn't help us answer why there were lower deaths from prostate cancer in Terland - correct?

Cheers

[tim]

that is correct; good job!

[prashant.ranjan]

Ron... Awesome explanation!!

Thanks
Prashant
----
Big Fan :)

[tim]

:)

[VikrantS137]

hi -

you need to pick a choice that actually points out a salient difference, regarding prostate cancer, between the two countries.
furthermore, that difference must register in the correct direction: i.e., the evidence must indicate that prostate cancer is LESS likely to be found in terland.

choice (c) does no such thing. in fact, choice (c) is perfectly neutral, giving absolutely no reason to suspect different levels of prostate cancer in the two countries. (first, "does not increase one's risk" implies equality of risk, not a disparity in either direction. second, this statement has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on differences between the two countries mentioned in the problem.)

choice (b), on the other hand, mentions a factor that is DIRECTLY responsible for the relatively low rate of prostate cancer in terland.
namely, if people in terland don't live long enough to GET prostate cancer in the first place, then you aren't going to see a lot of prostate cancer there. and there you have it.

--

by the way, this problem is an exact analogue of the real-world situation with such maladies as heart disease and breast/prostate cancer, which generally strike older individuals.
there are often strikingly low rates of death from those maladies in countries with otherwise horrible public health (such as sub-saharan african countries). this isn't due to better prostate/heart/breast health in those countries, though; it's simply because most people in those countries don't live anywhere near long enough to get these problems in the first place.

Ron - thank you for an awesome explanation. Though I have a followup question for B. Here, assumption in your explanation is that "OLD people ONLY/MOSTLY" get prostate cancer. My question is - can we make such assumptions? what if it were not 'prostate cancer' and some disease 'XYZ' that is more prominent in younger age. In that case, B will not help. correct?