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

It is currently 24 Oct 2014, 10:51

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 new study provides more support for the hypothesis that

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:
Expert Post
1 KUDOS received
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar
Joined: 01 Sep 2010
Posts: 2443
Followers: 312

Kudos [?]: 2622 [1] , given: 696

A new study provides more support for the hypothesis that [#permalink] New post 14 Apr 2013, 11:09
1
This post received
KUDOS
Expert's post
8
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  95% (hard)

Question Stats:

35% (02:28) correct 65% (01:23) wrong based on 303 sessions
A new study provides more support for the hypothesis that social support may strengthen people’s immune system. This study actually found that social isolation and loneliness can impair the immune system. According to the findings of the study, lonely and socially-isolated first-year students mounted a weaker immune response to the flu shot than other students.

The argument is flawed primarily because

(A) it assumes that there can only be one cause for an effect

(B) it assumes that a necessary condition for an event is a sufficient condition for that event to occur

(C) it assumes that if a cause for an effect is removed, then the effect will in turn get reversed

(D) it mistakes a symptom for a cause

(E) it is based on unverified and subjective data
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

_________________

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 7.Verbal question bank and Directories

VP
VP
User avatar
Status: Far, far away!
Joined: 02 Sep 2012
Posts: 1125
Location: Italy
Concentration: Finance, Entrepreneurship
GPA: 3.8
Followers: 113

Kudos [?]: 1198 [0], given: 219

GMAT ToolKit User
Re: A new study provides more support for the hypothesis that so [#permalink] New post 14 Apr 2013, 11:33
A new study provides more support for the hypothesis that social support may strengthen people’s immune system. This study actually found that social isolation and loneliness can impair the immune system. According to the findings of the study, lonely and socially-isolated first-year students mounted a weaker immune response to the flu shot than other students.

The argument is flawed primarily because

The problem IMO relies in the red part of the text. In the first part the conclusion of the study is presented, and then it is said that, according to the conclusion, lonely students have a weaker immune system. Before reading the answers it's clear that a weak point is the fact that other factors can contribute to this condition.

IMO B
(B) it assumes that a necessary condition for an event is a sufficient condition for that event to occur
It says that a necessary condition ( loneliness) for an event (weak system) is a sufficient condition (no other factors involved).

Waiting for OA...
_________________

It is beyond a doubt that all our knowledge that begins with experience.

Kant , Critique of Pure Reason

Tips and tricks: Inequalities , Mixture | Review: MGMAT workshop
Strategy: SmartGMAT v1.0 | Questions: Verbal challenge SC I-II- CR New SC set out !! , My Quant

Rules for Posting in the Verbal Forum - Rules for Posting in the Quant Forum[/size][/color][/b]

Expert Post
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar
Joined: 01 Sep 2010
Posts: 2443
Followers: 312

Kudos [?]: 2622 [0], given: 696

Re: A new study provides more support for the hypothesis that so [#permalink] New post 14 Apr 2013, 12:39
Expert's post
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
Zarrolou wrote:
A new study provides more support for the hypothesis that social support may strengthen people’s immune system. This study actually found that social isolation and loneliness can impair the immune system. According to the findings of the study, lonely and socially-isolated first-year students mounted a weaker immune response to the flu shot than other students.

The argument is flawed primarily because

The problem IMO relies in the red part of the text. In the first part the conclusion of the study is presented, and then it is said that, according to the conclusion, lonely students have a weaker immune system. Before reading the answers it's clear that a weak point is the fact that other factors can contribute to this condition.

IMO B
(B) it assumes that a necessary condition for an event is a sufficient condition for that event to occur
It says that a necessary condition ( loneliness) for an event (weak system) is a sufficient condition (no other factors involved).

Waiting for OA...



Hi

here B is wrong because neither is stated explicity nor implied about sufficiency and so on.....

C instead basically says that if you are alone, this scenari leads to an unbalance immune system but if you have the latter is not true that you have the first scenario (loneliness).

OR

Just because the cause is removed does not mean the effect will get reversed. It might remain unchanged.

C is the OA indeed ;)
_________________

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 7.Verbal question bank and Directories

2 KUDOS received
Verbal Forum Moderator
Verbal Forum Moderator
User avatar
Joined: 15 Jun 2012
Posts: 1120
Location: United States
Followers: 137

Kudos [?]: 1387 [2] , given: 122

Re: A new study provides more support for the hypothesis that so [#permalink] New post 14 Apr 2013, 14:49
2
This post received
KUDOS
2
This post was
BOOKMARKED
carcass wrote:
A new study provides more support for the hypothesis that social support may strengthen people’s immune system. This study actually found that social isolation and loneliness can impair the immune system. According to the findings of the study, lonely and socially-isolated first-year students mounted a weaker immune response to the flu shot than other students.

The argument is flawed primarily because

(A) it assumes that there can only be one cause for an effect

(B) it assumes that a necessary condition for an event is a sufficient condition for that event to occur

(C) it assumes that if a cause for an effect is removed, then the effect will in turn get reversed

(D) it mistakes a symptom for a cause

(E) it is based on unverified and subjective data


Tough question!

This is weaken question.

Premise: social support may strengthen immune system. KEY
Premise: social isolation and loneliness can impair the immune system
Conclusion: lonely and socially-isolated first-year students mounted a weaker immune response to the flu shot

Assumption: X helps Y --> no X will weaken Y. It's wrong because social may support strengthen immune system, but it doesn't mean No social support will weaken immune system.

C clearly states this flaw.

Hope it helps.
_________________

Please +1 KUDO if my post helps. Thank you.

"Designing cars consumes you; it has a hold on your spirit which is incredibly powerful. It's not something you can do part time, you have do it with all your heart and soul or you're going to get it wrong."

Chris Bangle - Former BMV Chief of Design.

Expert Post
2 KUDOS received
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar
Joined: 01 Sep 2010
Posts: 2443
Followers: 312

Kudos [?]: 2622 [2] , given: 696

Re: A new study provides more support for the hypothesis that so [#permalink] New post 14 Apr 2013, 15:45
2
This post received
KUDOS
Expert's post
pqhai wrote:
carcass wrote:
A new study provides more support for the hypothesis that social support may strengthen people’s immune system. This study actually found that social isolation and loneliness can impair the immune system. According to the findings of the study, lonely and socially-isolated first-year students mounted a weaker immune response to the flu shot than other students.

The argument is flawed primarily because

(A) it assumes that there can only be one cause for an effect

(B) it assumes that a necessary condition for an event is a sufficient condition for that event to occur

(C) it assumes that if a cause for an effect is removed, then the effect will in turn get reversed

(D) it mistakes a symptom for a cause

(E) it is based on unverified and subjective data


Tough question!

This is weaken question.

Premise: social support may strengthen immune system. KEY
Premise: social isolation and loneliness can impair the immune system
Conclusion: lonely and socially-isolated first-year students mounted a weaker immune response to the flu shot

Assumption: X helps Y --> no X will weaken Y. It's wrong because social may support strengthen immune system, but it doesn't mean No social support will weaken immune system.

C clearly states this flaw.


Hope it helps.



be careful when you say a weaken question and the stem talks about flaw in the reasoning.

Because weaken ----> you weaken the conclusion RELATED to the overll structure of the stimulus. And in weaken category question be careful to weaken only and exclusively the conclusion

In flaw question -----> you weaken directly the assumption. Basically is the contrary of the assumption.

They seem the same thing but need different strategy, though slightly.
_________________

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 7.Verbal question bank and Directories

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 14 Apr 2013
Posts: 44
GMAT 1: 740 Q50 V40
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 52 [0], given: 3

Re: A new study provides more support for the hypothesis that so [#permalink] New post 14 Apr 2013, 21:49
A new study provides more support for the hypothesis that social support may strengthen people’s immune system. This study actually found that social isolation and loneliness can impair the immune system. According to the findings of the study, lonely and socially-isolated first-year students mounted a weaker immune response to the flu shot than other students.

The argument is flawed primarily because

(A) it assumes that there can only be one cause for an effect
Nowhere is this stated or implied so this cant be the answer

(B) it assumes that a necessary condition for an event is a sufficient condition for that event to occur
The argument is not saying that loneliness is the necessary condition for a weaker immune system so this choice us also eliminated.

(C) it assumes that if a cause for an effect is removed, then the effect will in turn get reversed
This is closest to the argument in the passage as students who are not isolated (other students) don’t have a weaker response to flu shots.
But this should not mean that if loneliness is removed than the immune system will get ok and hence this is the flaw in the reasoning

(D) it mistakes a symptom for a cause
Cause is isolation and loneliness so this option is not possible.
(E) it is based on unverified and subjective data
Nowhere is it said that the data is unverified.
_________________

The Kudo please :)

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 06 Mar 2012
Posts: 36
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, International Business
GPA: 3.4
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 15 [0], given: 12

Re: A new study provides more support for the hypothesis that so [#permalink] New post 15 Apr 2013, 05:45
carcass wrote:
A new study provides more support for the hypothesis that social support may strengthen people’s immune system. This study actually found that social isolation and loneliness can impair the immune system. According to the findings of the study, lonely and socially-isolated first-year students mounted a weaker immune response to the flu shot than other students.

The argument is flawed primarily because

(A) it assumes that there can only be one cause for an effect

(B) it assumes that a necessary condition for an event is a sufficient condition for that event to occur

(C) it assumes that if a cause for an effect is removed, then the effect will in turn get reversed

(D) it mistakes a symptom for a cause

(E) it is based on unverified and subjective data



+1 C
Rephrasing the argument -
A study - 'lonely and socially-isolated students -- > a weaker immune response' provides support for the hypothesis - 'Social support may strengthen people’s immune system' -- clearly indicates the flaw because it assumes that if a cause (social isolation) for an effect (Weak immune system) is removed, then the effect will in turn get reversed

Press +1 Kudos if my post helped
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 03 Feb 2013
Posts: 375
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Strategy
GPA: 3.3
WE: Engineering (Computer Software)
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 52 [0], given: 326

CAT Tests
Re: A new study provides more support for the hypothesis that [#permalink] New post 19 Jan 2014, 06:33
carcass wrote:
A new study provides more support for the hypothesis that social support may strengthen people’s immune system. This study actually found that social isolation and loneliness can impair the immune system. According to the findings of the study, lonely and socially-isolated first-year students mounted a weaker immune response to the flu shot than other students.

The argument is flawed primarily because

(A) it assumes that there can only be one cause for an effect

(B) it assumes that a necessary condition for an event is a sufficient condition for that event to occur

(C) it assumes that if a cause for an effect is removed, then the effect will in turn get reversed

(D) it mistakes a symptom for a cause

(E) it is based on unverified and subjective data


The argument is flawed because it assumes there cannot be other reasons which can cause the same effect.

Both A and C says the same. How can C) be OA?
_________________

Thanks,
Kinjal
Never Give Up !!!

Please click on Kudos, if you think the post is helpful
Linkedin Handle : https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=116231592

Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 24 Oct 2013
Posts: 163
Location: Canada
GMAT 1: Q49 V38
WE: Design (Transportation)
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 81

GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member CAT Tests
Re: A new study provides more support for the hypothesis that [#permalink] New post 20 Jun 2014, 13:48
kinjiGC wrote:
carcass wrote:
A new study provides more support for the hypothesis that social support may strengthen people’s immune system. This study actually found that social isolation and loneliness can impair the immune system. According to the findings of the study, lonely and socially-isolated first-year students mounted a weaker immune response to the flu shot than other students.

The argument is flawed primarily because

(A) it assumes that there can only be one cause for an effect

(B) it assumes that a necessary condition for an event is a sufficient condition for that event to occur

(C) it assumes that if a cause for an effect is removed, then the effect will in turn get reversed

(D) it mistakes a symptom for a cause

(E) it is based on unverified and subjective data


The argument is flawed because it assumes there cannot be other reasons which can cause the same effect.

Both A and C says the same. How can C) be OA?



Argument says 'This study actually found that social isolation and loneliness can impair the immune system'

A) it assumes that there can only be one cause for an effect

No, it doesn't assume that in any way. It just says social isolation and loneliness CAN impair the immune system. Whereas, what you are saying would be a paraphrase of 'This study actually found that ONLY social isolation and loneliness can impair the immune system'
Expert Post
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar
Joined: 20 Dec 2013
Posts: 160
GMAT 1: 720 Q49 V40
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 24 [0], given: 62

GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: A new study provides more support for the hypothesis that [#permalink] New post 21 Jun 2014, 11:53
Expert's post
I picked C as it was the closest, but a bit borderline imo. The cause for effect is not only removed, but also reversed (as is the effect). Maybe in logic terms, these two are equivalent...
_________________

MY GMAT BLOG - ADVICE - OPINIONS - ANALYSIS

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 28 Apr 2014
Posts: 291
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 24 [0], given: 46

GMAT ToolKit User
Re: A new study provides more support for the hypothesis that [#permalink] New post 25 Jun 2014, 02:16
I am confused on why not A. The stem says

According to the findings of the study, lonely and socially-isolated first-year students mounted a weaker immune response to the flu shot than other students

Isn't this assuming that social isolation could be the only cause for these students to have weaker immune response
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 09 Apr 2013
Posts: 140
Location: India
WE: Supply Chain Management (Consulting)
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 37 [0], given: 18

Re: A new study provides more support for the hypothesis that [#permalink] New post 25 Jun 2014, 05:30
Here is my approach.

Lets identify the cause and effect in the argument.

Cause: Social isolation

Effect: Weaker immune system

Based on this cause-effect relationship, the argument concludes that social support strengthens immune system.

So the conclusion basically assumes that if cause is removed (or social support is improved), then the effect will be reversed (immune system will be strengthened).

Hence C is the answer.
_________________

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

"Those, who never do any more than they get paid for, never get paid for any more than they do"

Re: A new study provides more support for the hypothesis that   [#permalink] 25 Jun 2014, 05:30
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
A recent study of ancient clay deposits has provided new mahesh004 13 13 Jun 2006, 22:49
A recent study of ancient clay deposits has provided new zoom612 9 03 May 2006, 08:08
A recent study of ancient clay deposits has provided new antiant 6 25 Apr 2006, 07:12
A recent study of ancient clay deposits has provided new joemama142000 4 16 Feb 2006, 15:49
A recent study of ancient clay deposits has provided new rchadha 1 01 Sep 2005, 08:34
Display posts from previous: Sort by

A new study provides more support for the hypothesis that

  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®.