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

It is currently 30 Aug 2014, 16:30

Close

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
Your Progress

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

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

A law is being proposed that would require the installation

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:
2 KUDOS received
Intern
Intern
User avatar
Joined: 08 May 2012
Posts: 14
Location: India
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 13 [2] , given: 9

A law is being proposed that would require the installation [#permalink] New post 17 Sep 2012, 04:35
2
This post received
KUDOS
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  35% (medium)

Question Stats:

58% (02:16) correct 42% (01:23) wrong based on 182 sessions
A law is being proposed that would require the installation of defibrillators, which are used to treat heart attacks, in new restaurants. However, a leading local restaurant owner opposes the law, saying that the vast majority of preventable heart attack deaths can be prevented by the timely employment of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR).

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the restaurant owner's argument?

A. Most individuals have no formal training in cardiopulmonary resuscitation.
B. Since new restaurants are but a small fraction of all restaurants in the area, the new law would be extremely narrow in scope.
C. The installation of defibrillators in new restaurants costs significantly less than the installation of fire suppression equipment.
D.In the area that the proposed law would cover, the average time required for emergency personnel to respond to medical emergencies was far less than that of the whole country.
E. The largest proportion of heart attack deaths result from situations in which no cardiopulmonary resuscitation-trained individuals are present.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA
Intern
Intern
avatar
Status: Working on GMAT
Affiliations: Purdue University - EE; RF Design - Telecommunication
Joined: 02 Sep 2012
Posts: 6
Location: United States
Concentration: Strategy, General Management
GPA: 3.16
WE: Design (Telecommunications)
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 0

Re: installation of defibrillators [#permalink] New post 17 Sep 2012, 19:18
A law is being proposed that would require the installation of defibrillators, which are used to treat heart attacks, in new restaurants. However, a leading local restaurant owner opposes the law, saying that the vast majority of preventable heart attack deaths can be prevented by the timely employment of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR).

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the restaurant owner's argument?

A. Most individuals have no formal training in cardiopulmonary resuscitation.
B. Since new restaurants are but a small fraction of all restaurants in the area, the new law would be extremely narrow in scope.
C. The installation of defibrillators in new restaurants costs significantly less than the installation of fire suppression equipment.
D.In the area that the proposed law would cover, the average time required for emergency personnel to respond to medical emergencies was far less than that of the whole country.
E. The largest proportion of heart attack deaths result from situations in which no cardiopulmonary resuscitation-trained individuals are present.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Argument: the vast majority of preventable heart attack deaths can be prevented by the timely employment of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR)

A weakens the argument
B Irrelevant
C Irrelevant, Installing fire suppression, hopefully, has nothing to do with CPR :-D
D Irrelevant
E weakens the argument

Have to decide between A & E. Question asks "Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the restaurant owner's argument?"
- IMO E is the right answer because it refers to heart attack deaths, which has serious impact, as opposed to A, which only says most have no training.
Current Student
User avatar
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: 33

Kudos [?]: 112 [0], given: 269

CAT Tests
Re: installation of defibrillators [#permalink] New post 17 Sep 2012, 22:01
+1A

Premise - A law is being proposed that would require the installation of defibrillators, which are used to treat heart attacks, in new restaurants.

Conclusion - However, a leading local restaurant owner opposes the law, saying that the vast majority of preventable heart attack deaths can be prevented by the timely employment of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR).

Anything which weakens the conclusion is our answer i.e anything which proves that vast majority of preventable heart attack deaths can NOT be prevented by the timely employment of CPR is our answer

A. Most individuals have no formal training in cardiopulmonary resuscitation. (Good option, if people do not know about CPR the conclusion becomes weak, let us keep this option for some time)
B. Since new restaurants are but a small fraction of all restaurants in the area, the new law would be extremely narrow in scope. (Irrelevant)
C. The installation of defibrillators in new restaurants costs significantly less than the installation of fire suppression equipment. (Fire suppression?? Out of Scope)
D. In the area that the proposed law would cover, the average time required for emergency personnel to respond to medical emergencies was far less than that of the whole country. (It is not related to CPR and does not solve our purpose)
E. The largest proportion of heart attack deaths result from situations in which no cardiopulmonary resuscitation-trained individuals are present. (It strengthen the conclusion i.e it might have been possible to avoid a few deaths if CPR trained individuals would have been present)

The only option we are left with is option A which should be our answer.


Why is the OA E? What am I doing worng here? :|
_________________

First Attempt 710 - first-attempt-141273.html


Last edited by getgyan on 18 Sep 2012, 05:36, edited 1 time in total.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Status: Prevent and prepare. Not repent and repair!!
Joined: 13 Feb 2010
Posts: 278
Location: India
Concentration: Technology, General Management
GPA: 3.75
WE: Sales (Telecommunications)
Followers: 9

Kudos [?]: 20 [0], given: 282

Re: installation of defibrillators [#permalink] New post 18 Sep 2012, 00:32
getgyan wrote:
+1A

Premise - A law is being proposed that would require the installation of defibrillators, which are used to treat heart attacks, in new restaurants.

Conclusion - However, a leading local restaurant owner opposes the law, saying that the vast majority of preventable heart attack deaths can be prevented by the timely employment of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR).

Anything which weakens the conclusion is our answer i.e anything which proves that vast majority of preventable heart attack deaths can NOT be prevented by the timely employment of CPR is our answer

A. Most individuals have no formal training in cardiopulmonary resuscitation. (Good option, if people does not know about CPR the conclusion becomes weak, let us keep this option for some time)
B. Since new restaurants are but a small fraction of all restaurants in the area, the new law would be extremely narrow in scope. (Irrelevant)
C. The installation of defibrillators in new restaurants costs significantly less than the installation of fire suppression equipment. (Fire suppression?? Out of Scope)
D. In the area that the proposed law would cover, the average time required for emergency personnel to respond to medical emergencies was far less than that of the whole country. (It is not related to CPR and does not solve our purpose)
E. The largest proportion of heart attack deaths result from situations in which no cardiopulmonary resuscitation-trained individuals are present. (It strengthen the conclusion i.e it might have been possible to avoid a few deaths if CPR trained individuals would have been present)

The only option we are left with is option A which should be our answer.


Why is the OA E? What am I doing worng here? :|



The ans is E.

You eliminate BCD as they are out of scope.

Now between A and E- A talks about being trained in CPR which is not of relevance here. We are talking about deaths due to heart attacks.

If you look at E it says people are dying in which no CPR trained guys are present. That means its better to install the Defibrillators. This will weaken the restaurant owner's stand and this is what we want.

Hope this is clear.
_________________

I've failed over and over and over again in my life and that is why I succeed--Michael Jordan
Kudos drives a person to better himself every single time. So Pls give it generously
Wont give up till i hit a 700+

Current Student
User avatar
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: 33

Kudos [?]: 112 [0], given: 269

CAT Tests
Re: installation of defibrillators [#permalink] New post 18 Sep 2012, 02:11
rajathpanta wrote:
getgyan wrote:
+1A

Premise - A law is being proposed that would require the installation of defibrillators, which are used to treat heart attacks, in new restaurants.

Conclusion - However, a leading local restaurant owner opposes the law, saying that the vast majority of preventable heart attack deaths can be prevented by the timely employment of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR).

Anything which weakens the conclusion is our answer i.e anything which proves that vast majority of preventable heart attack deaths can NOT be prevented by the timely employment of CPR is our answer

A. Most individuals have no formal training in cardiopulmonary resuscitation. (Good option, if people does not know about CPR the conclusion becomes weak, let us keep this option for some time)
B. Since new restaurants are but a small fraction of all restaurants in the area, the new law would be extremely narrow in scope. (Irrelevant)
C. The installation of defibrillators in new restaurants costs significantly less than the installation of fire suppression equipment. (Fire suppression?? Out of Scope)
D. In the area that the proposed law would cover, the average time required for emergency personnel to respond to medical emergencies was far less than that of the whole country. (It is not related to CPR and does not solve our purpose)
E. The largest proportion of heart attack deaths result from situations in which no cardiopulmonary resuscitation-trained individuals are present. (It strengthen the conclusion i.e it might have been possible to avoid a few deaths if CPR trained individuals would have been present)

The only option we are left with is option A which should be our answer.


Why is the OA E? What am I doing worng here? :|



The ans is E.

You eliminate BCD as they are out of scope.

Now between A and E- A talks about being trained in CPR which is not of relevance here. We are talking about deaths due to heart attacks.

If you look at E it says people are dying in which no CPR trained guys are present. That means its better to install the Defibrillators. This will weaken the restaurant owner's stand and this is what we want.

Hope this is clear.


Why is A not relevant here? Let’s see

The last sentence says a vast majority of preventable heart attack deaths can be prevented by the timely employment of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). What will weaken this? Yes, a vast number of heart cases can be treated by CPR ONLY if the people around the patient knows how to perform a proper CPR. But option A states that most individuals have no formal training in cardiopulmonary resuscitation, thus weakening the conclusion.

Is not it?
:?
_________________

First Attempt 710 - first-attempt-141273.html

Expert Post
1 KUDOS received
Retired Moderator
avatar
Status: worked for Kaplan's associates, but now on my own, free and flying
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 2266
Location: India
WE: Education (Education)
Followers: 261

Kudos [?]: 1554 [1] , given: 248

Re: installation of defibrillators [#permalink] New post 18 Sep 2012, 04:54
1
This post received
KUDOS
Expert's post
A law is being proposed that would require the installation of defibrillators, which are used to treat heart attacks, in new restaurants. However, a leading local restaurateur opposes the law, saying that the vast majority of preventable heart attack deaths can be prevented by the timely employment of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR).

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the restaurateur’s argument?

Almost individuals have no formal training in cardiopulmonary resuscitation.
B.Since new restaurants are but a small fraction of all restaurants in the area, the new law would be extremely narrow in scope.
C.The installation of defibrillators in new restaurants costs significantly less than the installation of fire suppression equipment.
D.In the area that the proposed law would cover, the average time required for emergency personnel to respond to medical emergencies was far less than that of the whole country.
E.The largest proportion of heart attack deaths result from situations in which no cardiopulmonary resuscitation-trained individuals are present


While dumping BCD as irrelevant, and limiting the discussion to between A and E, I would rather lean more E than on A.

The hotelier says that CPR is enough and hence he opposes the law.

In order to weaken his stand, we need to say that CPR may be good but still it is not guaranteed that we can be confident about CPR, since CPR trained people aren’t going to be handily available.

A claims that most individuals have no formal training in CPR, hence CPR may not be enough. But it may not weaken the hoteliers’ stand; The word most still leaves a gap and a few that are left out of A’s ambit might still be available in and around the hotel. So insufficient training can only take us half across the well. On the contrary E point blank avers that if the trained person is not going to be available instantly, then death is sure to occur. This directly enhances the need to comply with the law and hence the Hotelier’s reasoning that we do not need the gadgets can be dislodged.

The point that you may be missing is that, the assumption that only CPR can save patients from death in heart attacks. CPR is only one of the methods that can save. Between the error- prone human being and a gadget, the gadget is more reliable.
_________________

Get the best GMAT Prep Resources with GMAT Club Premium Membership

Current Student
User avatar
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: 33

Kudos [?]: 112 [0], given: 269

CAT Tests
Re: A law is being proposed that would require the installation [#permalink] New post 19 Sep 2012, 03:34
Thanks Daagh

Now I understand. The hotelier says that “timely employment of CPR is enough” but option E states that there were no CPR trained professional around in most of heart attack deaths i.e. they were somewhere far and could not be available in time, thus weakening the conclusion.

I hope I am correct.
:-D
_________________

First Attempt 710 - first-attempt-141273.html

VP
VP
avatar
Status: Final Lap Up!!!
Affiliations: NYK Line
Joined: 21 Sep 2012
Posts: 1096
Location: India
GMAT 1: 410 Q35 V11
GMAT 2: 530 Q44 V20
GMAT 3: 630 Q45 V31
GPA: 3.84
WE: Engineering (Transportation)
Followers: 32

Kudos [?]: 255 [0], given: 67

Re: installation of defibrillators [#permalink] New post 25 Oct 2012, 01:08
getgyan wrote:
+1A

Premise - A law is being proposed that would require the installation of defibrillators, which are used to treat heart attacks, in new restaurants.

Conclusion - However, a leading local restaurant owner opposes the law, saying that the vast majority of preventable heart attack deaths can be prevented by the timely employment of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR).

Anything which weakens the conclusion is our answer i.e anything which proves that vast majority of preventable heart attack deaths can NOT be prevented by the timely employment of CPR is our answer

A. Most individuals have no formal training in cardiopulmonary resuscitation. (Good option, if people do not know about CPR the conclusion becomes weak, let us keep this option for some time)
B. Since new restaurants are but a small fraction of all restaurants in the area, the new law would be extremely narrow in scope. (Irrelevant)
C. The installation of defibrillators in new restaurants costs significantly less than the installation of fire suppression equipment. (Fire suppression?? Out of Scope)
D. In the area that the proposed law would cover, the average time required for emergency personnel to respond to medical emergencies was far less than that of the whole country. (It is not related to CPR and does not solve our purpose)
E. The largest proportion of heart attack deaths result from situations in which no cardiopulmonary resuscitation-trained individuals are present. (It strengthen the conclusion i.e it might have been possible to avoid a few deaths if CPR trained individuals would have been present)

The only option we are left with is option A which should be our answer.


Why is the OA E? What am I doing worng here? :|


Hi
i dont knw whether you hav gone thru a question wherein new law requires sprinklers to be installed in homes, the answer maximum big fire occured when inmates are not at home.
the question is of same pattern..... i am searching for question...i guess it was an og or mgmat question...once i get ill post the question.
bt the question type is same
SVP
SVP
User avatar
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 1725
Followers: 237

Kudos [?]: 52 [0], given: 0

Premium Member
Re: A law is being proposed that would require the installation [#permalink] New post 20 Dec 2013, 17:33
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
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 03 May 2013
Posts: 322
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Human Resources
Schools: ISB '16, IIMA (M)
GPA: 4
WE: Human Resources (Human Resources)
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 38 [0], given: 47

Re: A law is being proposed that would require the installation [#permalink] New post 22 Dec 2013, 00:20
A law is being proposed that would require the installation of defibrillators, which are used to treat heart attacks, in new restaurants. However, a leading local restaurateur opposes the law, saying that the vast majority of preventable heart attack deaths can be prevented by the timely employment of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR).

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the restaurateur’s argument?

Both A and E are prospective answers......
A. says "most individuals have no formal training in cardiopulmonary resuscitation". Most people may not be needed, just one will do. No formal training required... basic training will do......

E. says "The largest proportion of heart attack deaths result from situations in which no cardiopulmonary resuscitation-trained individuals are present". So, if a cardiopulmonary resuscitation-trained individual is not present, which is possible, likely hood of death is high..... Hence restaurateur's argument weakens.....
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Status: Work hard in silence, let success make the noise
Joined: 25 Nov 2013
Posts: 160
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, General Management
GMAT 1: 540 Q50 V15
GMAT 2: 640 Q50 V27
GPA: 3.11
WE: Consulting (Computer Software)
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 29 [0], given: 84

Re: A law is being proposed that would require the installation [#permalink] New post 30 Dec 2013, 03:52
Excellent question. I was confused between A and E. Went with A and got it wrong.
Its only after reading explanation by daagh, I was convinced that E is the correct answer.
_________________

Sahil Chaudhary
If you find this post helpful, please take a moment to click on the "+1 KUDOS" icon.
My IELTS 7.5 Experience
From 540 to 640...Done with GMAT!!!
http://www.sahilchaudhary007.blogspot.com

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 03 May 2013
Posts: 322
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Human Resources
Schools: ISB '16, IIMA (M)
GPA: 4
WE: Human Resources (Human Resources)
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 38 [0], given: 47

Re: A law is being proposed that would require the installation [#permalink] New post 30 Dec 2013, 13:29
A law is being proposed that would require the installation of defibrillators, which are used to treat heart attacks, in new restaurants. However, a leading local restaurant owner opposes the law, saying that the vast majority of preventable heart attack deaths can be prevented by the timely employment of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR).

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the restaurant owner's argument?

A. Most individuals have no formal training in cardiopulmonary resuscitation. most people dont need to know... even one will do... wrong
B. Since new restaurants are but a small fraction of all restaurants in the area, the new law would be extremely narrow in scope. irrelevant..
C. The installation of defibrillators in new restaurants costs significantly less than the installation of fire suppression equipment. cost irrelevant
D.In the area that the proposed law would cover, the average time required for emergency personnel to respond to medical emergencies was far less than that of the whole country. relative responce time irrelevant
E. The largest proportion of heart attack deaths result from situations in which no cardiopulmonary resuscitation-trained individuals are present. correct.... in such a scenario if DEFIBRILLATOR WAS AVAILABLE the life could be saved..
Re: A law is being proposed that would require the installation   [#permalink] 30 Dec 2013, 13:29
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
1 Experts publish their posts in the topic A proposed ordinance requires the installation WaterFlowsUp 1 16 Oct 2013, 06:11
2 Experts publish their posts in the topic A law is being proposed that would require the installation MOKSH 3 10 Jan 2013, 21:42
A proposed law would require people to bring photo ID to maheshsrini 5 13 Nov 2011, 20:17
The state legislature has proposed a law that would require agdimple333 8 06 Jul 2011, 09:27
The state legislature has proposed a law that would require suntaurian 6 02 Mar 2008, 20:38
Display posts from previous: Sort by

A law is being proposed that would require the installation

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Privacy Policy| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group and phpBB SEO

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.