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

It is currently 01 Jul 2016, 07:19
GMAT Club Tests

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

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

1 KUDOS received
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 01 Dec 2012
Posts: 35
Concentration: Finance, Operations
GPA: 2.9
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 45 [1] , given: 8

Reviews Badge
A law is being proposed that would require the installation [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 10 Jan 2013, 22:42
1
This post received
KUDOS
5
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  65% (hard)

Question Stats:

56% (02:21) correct 44% (01:30) wrong based on 275 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

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 restauranteur 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 restauranteur's argument?

Most individuals have no formal training in cardiopulmonary resuscitation.
Since new restaurants are but a small fraction of all restaurants in the area, the new law would be extremely narrow in scope.
The installation of defibrillators in new restaurants costs significantly less than the installation of fire suppression equipment.
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.
The largest proportion of heart attack deaths result from situations in which no cardiopulmonary resuscitation-trained individuals are present.

I am struggling between A & E rest are OFS
Please differentiate the both options effectively , so that it could easily understood .

Thanks in advance

MOKSH
KUDO , if u like or it helps u !
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA
Expert Post
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar
Joined: 01 Sep 2010
Posts: 2943
Followers: 680

Kudos [?]: 5399 [0], given: 957

Re: A law is being proposed that would require the installation [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 11 Jan 2013, 05:04
Expert's post
MOKSH wrote:
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 restauranteur 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 restauranteur's argument?

Most individuals have no formal training in cardiopulmonary resuscitation.
Since new restaurants are but a small fraction of all restaurants in the area, the new law would be extremely narrow in scope.
The installation of defibrillators in new restaurants costs significantly less than the installation of fire suppression equipment.
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.
The largest proportion of heart attack deaths result from situations in which no cardiopulmonary resuscitation-trained individuals are present.

I am struggling between A & E rest are OFS
Please differentiate the both options effectively , so that it could easily understood .

Thanks in advance

MOKSH
KUDO , if u like or it helps u !


We weak the argument only if we find something that says CPR is unuseful

A says about the tranining but says nothing about the scenario to take in account. The training in CPR doesn't help us to weaken the argument at all

E instead says that CPR is not useful so we have the second scenario. So is sufficient to weaken the argument
_________________

COLLECTION OF QUESTIONS AND RESOURCES
Quant: 1. ALL GMATPrep questions Quant/Verbal 2. Bunuel Signature Collection - The Next Generation 3. Bunuel Signature Collection ALL-IN-ONE WITH SOLUTIONS 4. Veritas Prep Blog PDF Version 5. MGMAT Study Hall Thursdays with Ron Quant Videos
Verbal:1. Verbal question bank and directories by Carcass 2. MGMAT Study Hall Thursdays with Ron Verbal Videos 3. Critical Reasoning_Oldy but goldy question banks 4. Sentence Correction_Oldy but goldy question banks 5. Reading-comprehension_Oldy but goldy question banks

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 09 Apr 2013
Posts: 152
Location: India
WE: Supply Chain Management (Consulting)
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 77 [0], given: 24

GMAT ToolKit User
Re: A law is being proposed that would require the installation [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Nov 2013, 10:43
E is the best choice.

Conclusion: Majority of heart attacks can be prevented by employing CPR.

In order to weaken this conclusion given in the stimulus, find an answer choice that highlights the ineffectiveness of employing CPR to reduce heart attack deaths.


MOKSH wrote:
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 restauranteur opposes the law, saying that the vast majority of preventable heart attack deaths can be prevented by the timely employment ofcardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR).
Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the restauranteur's argument?

Most individuals have no formal training in cardiopulmonary resuscitation.Having no formal training will not hurt the conclusion. What if all the individuals be trained in some or other way?
Since new restaurants are but a small fraction of all restaurants in the area, the new law would be extremely narrow in scope. New restaurants being only a fraction of all restaurants in the area would not limit the effectiveness of the restauranteur's plan. What if most of the customers in the area visit those new restaurants?
The installation of defibrillators in new restaurants costs significantly less than the installation of fire suppression equipment.Cost is not mentioned as a factor affecting the plan in the stimulus. Irrelevant.
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.This choice strengthens the conclusion as less time to respond helps timely employment of CPR.
The largest proportion of heart attack deaths result from situations in which no cardiopulmonary resuscitation-trained individuals are present.If more heart attacks occur in situations where CPR trained personnel are not available, then the proposed plan would not have its intended effect. This choice best weakens the conclusion.

I am struggling between A & E rest are OFS
Please differentiate the both options effectively , so that it could easily understood .

Thanks in advance

MOKSH
KUDO , if u like or it helps u !

_________________

+1 KUDOS is the best way to say thanks :-)

"Pay attention to every detail"

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 23 Apr 2012
Posts: 55
GMAT 1: 690 Q49 V34
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 18 [0], given: 2

Re: A law is being proposed that would require the installation [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Nov 2013, 07:13
MOKSH wrote:
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 restauranteur 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 restauranteur's argument?


Most individuals have no formal training in cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

The largest proportion of heart attack deaths result from situations in which no cardiopulmonary resuscitation-trained individuals are present.

I am struggling between A & E rest are OFS
Please differentiate the both options effectively , so that it could easily understood .



+1 E.

A: Most individuals have no formal training in cardiopulmonary resuscitation.
The argument doesnt mention anything about individuals requiring "formal" training . What if informal training were enough? Nobody knows !
May be even without any"formal" training individuals can perform CPR and save patients.

E. The largest proportion of heart attack deaths result from situations in which no cardiopulmonary resuscitation-trained individuals are present.
If this is true, then the CPR training would be rendered useless. Let's say the govt did train 99% of the people in CPR. But what would be the point if none of those is present? Training would be in vain.

Hope this makes sense.
Verbal Forum Moderator
Verbal Forum Moderator
User avatar
Joined: 29 Apr 2015
Posts: 901
Location: Switzerland
Concentration: Economics, Finance
WE: Asset Management (Investment Banking)
Followers: 40

Kudos [?]: 864 [0], given: 302

GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member
Re: A law is being proposed that would require the installation [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 May 2015, 05:02
MOKSH wrote:
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 restauranteur 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 restauranteur's argument?

Most individuals have no formal training in cardiopulmonary resuscitation.
Since new restaurants are but a small fraction of all restaurants in the area, the new law would be extremely narrow in scope.
The installation of defibrillators in new restaurants costs significantly less than the installation of fire suppression equipment.
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.
The largest proportion of heart attack deaths result from situations in which no cardiopulmonary resuscitation-trained individuals are present.

I am struggling between A & E rest are OFS
Please differentiate the both options effectively , so that it could easily understood .

Thanks in advance

MOKSH
KUDO , if u like or it helps u !



Seriously, is AC E correct? You must weaken the restauranteur's argument and therefore find an argument that's against CPR. However AC E is in favor of CPR? Am I misunderstanding AC E?
_________________

Saving was yesterday, heat up the gmatclub.forum's sentiment by spending KUDOS!

PS Please send me PM if I do not respond to your question within 24 hours.

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 27 Jul 2014
Posts: 341
Schools: ISB '15
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 15

GMAT ToolKit User CAT Tests
Re: A law is being proposed that would require the installation [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 May 2015, 00:08
cssk wrote:
E is the best choice.

Conclusion: Majority of heart attacks can be prevented by employing CPR.

In order to weaken this conclusion given in the stimulus, find an answer choice that highlights the ineffectiveness of employing CPR to reduce heart attack deaths.


MOKSH wrote:
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 restauranteur opposes the law, saying that the vast majority of preventable heart attack deaths can be prevented by the timely employment ofcardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR).
Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the restauranteur's argument?

Most individuals have no formal training in cardiopulmonary resuscitation.Having no formal training will not hurt the conclusion. What if all the individuals be trained in some or other way?
Since new restaurants are but a small fraction of all restaurants in the area, the new law would be extremely narrow in scope. New restaurants being only a fraction of all restaurants in the area would not limit the effectiveness of the restauranteur's plan. What if most of the customers in the area visit those new restaurants?
The installation of defibrillators in new restaurants costs significantly less than the installation of fire suppression equipment.Cost is not mentioned as a factor affecting the plan in the stimulus. Irrelevant.
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.This choice strengthens the conclusion as less time to respond helps timely employment of CPR.
The largest proportion of heart attack deaths result from situations in which no cardiopulmonary resuscitation-trained individuals are present.If more heart attacks occur in situations where CPR trained personnel are not available, then the proposed plan would not have its intended effect. This choice best weakens the conclusion.

I am struggling between A & E rest are OFS
Please differentiate the both options effectively , so that it could easily understood .

Thanks in advance

MOKSH
KUDO , if u like or it helps u !



Hi Moksh,

As mentioned above conclusion is heart attacks can be prevented by using CPR
and option E states ,most heart attacks occur at a place where there are no CPR trained personnel.

So its just mentioning conclusion in other way round, i fail to understand how is this weakening the conclusion
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 24 Jul 2011
Posts: 247
Location: India
GMAT 1: 570 Q50 V19
GMAT 2: 650 Q49 V28
GMAT 3: 690 Q50 V34
WE: Information Technology (Investment Banking)
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 35 [0], given: 93

GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge
Re: A law is being proposed that would require the installation [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 Sep 2015, 01:35
Leading local restaurant owner said the timely employment of CPR can save a lot of lives. But what if sufficient number of CPR trained people is not available then law requiring CPR is of no use. E states that most deaths were caused when "no cardiopulmonary resuscitation-trained individuals are present"


kanigmat011 wrote:
cssk wrote:
E is the best choice.

Conclusion: Majority of heart attacks can be prevented by employing CPR.

In order to weaken this conclusion given in the stimulus, find an answer choice that highlights the ineffectiveness of employing CPR to reduce heart attack deaths.


MOKSH wrote:
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 restauranteur opposes the law, saying that the vast majority of preventable heart attack deaths can be prevented by the timely employment ofcardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR).
Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the restauranteur's argument?

Most individuals have no formal training in cardiopulmonary resuscitation.Having no formal training will not hurt the conclusion. What if all the individuals be trained in some or other way?
Since new restaurants are but a small fraction of all restaurants in the area, the new law would be extremely narrow in scope. New restaurants being only a fraction of all restaurants in the area would not limit the effectiveness of the restauranteur's plan. What if most of the customers in the area visit those new restaurants?
The installation of defibrillators in new restaurants costs significantly less than the installation of fire suppression equipment.Cost is not mentioned as a factor affecting the plan in the stimulus. Irrelevant.
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.This choice strengthens the conclusion as less time to respond helps timely employment of CPR.
The largest proportion of heart attack deaths result from situations in which no cardiopulmonary resuscitation-trained individuals are present.If more heart attacks occur in situations where CPR trained personnel are not available, then the proposed plan would not have its intended effect. This choice best weakens the conclusion.

I am struggling between A & E rest are OFS
Please differentiate the both options effectively , so that it could easily understood .

Thanks in advance

MOKSH
KUDO , if u like or it helps u !



Hi Moksh,

As mentioned above conclusion is heart attacks can be prevented by using CPR
and option E states ,most heart attacks occur at a place where there are no CPR trained personnel.

So its just mentioning conclusion in other way round, i fail to understand how is this weakening the conclusion

_________________

Middle of nowhere!

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Posts: 72
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 18 [0], given: 20

A law is being proposed that would require the installation [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 12 Oct 2015, 11:21
MOKSH wrote:
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 restauranteur 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 restauranteur's argument?

Most individuals have no formal training in cardiopulmonary resuscitation.
Since new restaurants are but a small fraction of all restaurants in the area, the new law would be extremely narrow in scope.
The installation of defibrillators in new restaurants costs significantly less than the installation of fire suppression equipment.
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.
The largest proportion of heart attack deaths result from situations in which no cardiopulmonary resuscitation-trained individuals are present.

I am struggling between A & E rest are OFS
Please differentiate the both options effectively , so that it could easily understood .

Thanks in advance

MOKSH
KUDO , if u like or it helps u !



My take is Option E. I took a simple approach.
Question Stem:
A law requires installation of defibrillators. However, a leading restaurant owner oppose the law and states that timely employment of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) will prevent the heart attack.

Option B, C, and D are straight away out. Let me know if you need me to explain those options.

Option A: Most individuals have no formal training in cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Okay, but what if that even though the individuals had no formal training but they can still operate the CPR (by reading user manual). Formal training is not a prerequisite to use the CPR. The option leaves that possibility.

Option E: "The largest proportion of heart attack deaths result from situations in which no cardiopulmonary resuscitation-trained individuals are present". Hmm interesting. Okay, restaurant owner (who oppose the law), you have the CPR. But what if the heart attacks are actually caused by the CPR since during the emergency situation no CPR trained individuals are present.
E is the correct answer.

Thanks,
Chanakya

Hit kudos if you like the explanation!
A law is being proposed that would require the installation   [#permalink] 12 Oct 2015, 11:21
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
2 Experts publish their posts in the topic A proposed ordinance requires the installation WaterFlowsUp 4 16 Oct 2013, 07:11
7 Experts publish their posts in the topic A law is being proposed that would require the installation sajini 12 17 Sep 2012, 05:35
The state legislature has proposed a law that would require agdimple333 8 06 Jul 2011, 10:27
4 The purpose of the proposed law requiring a doctor's reply2spg 18 21 Jan 2009, 16:10
The state legislature has proposed a law that would require suntaurian 7 02 Mar 2008, 21:38
Display posts from previous: Sort by

A law is being proposed that would require the installation

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| 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®.