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

It is currently 24 Jul 2014, 19:55

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:
1 KUDOS received
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 01 Dec 2012
Posts: 34
Concentration: Finance, Operations
GPA: 2.9
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 18 [1] , given: 8

A law is being proposed that would require the installation [#permalink] New post 10 Jan 2013, 21:42
1
This post received
KUDOS
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  35% (medium)

Question Stats:

56% (02:20) correct 44% (01:34) wrong based on 82 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 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: 2317
Followers: 241

Kudos [?]: 2058 [0], given: 677

Re: A law is being proposed that would require the installation [#permalink] New post 11 Jan 2013, 04:04
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
Quant: 1. Bunuel Signature Collection - The Next Generation 2. Bunuel Signature Collection ALL-IN-ONE WITH SOLUTIONS 3. Veritas Prep Blog PDF Version
Verbal:1. Best EXTERNAL resources to tackle the GMAT Verbal Section 2. e-GMAT's ALL CR topics-Consolidated 3. New Critical Reasoning question bank by carcass 4. Meaning/Clarity SC Question Bank by Carcass_Souvik 5. e-GMAT's ALL SC topics-Consolidated-2nd Edition 6. The best reading to improve Reading Comprehension

TOEFL iBT
Best resources to tackle each section of the TOEFL iBT

Manager
Manager
avatar
Status: I am back!!!
Joined: 09 Apr 2013
Posts: 137
Location: India
WE: Consulting (Telecommunications)
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 26 [0], given: 18

Re: A law is being proposed that would require the installation [#permalink] New post 23 Nov 2013, 09:43
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 :-)

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 23 Apr 2012
Posts: 55
GMAT 1: 690 Q49 V34
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 14 [0], given: 2

Re: A law is being proposed that would require the installation [#permalink] New post 24 Nov 2013, 06:13
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.
Re: A law is being proposed that would require the installation   [#permalink] 24 Nov 2013, 06:13
    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
3 Experts publish their posts in the topic A law is being proposed that would require the installation sajini 11 17 Sep 2012, 04:35
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®.