A nutritionist studying the effects of massive doses of : GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) - Page 2
Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases http://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 21 Jan 2017, 03:48

### 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

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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# A nutritionist studying the effects of massive doses of

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Senior Manager
Joined: 16 Jul 2005
Posts: 404
Location: Las Vegas
Followers: 1

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

### Show Tags

02 Oct 2005, 22:14
I will go for D also
Manager
Joined: 09 Nov 2004
Posts: 138
Followers: 1

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

### Show Tags

03 Oct 2005, 06:16
D.

C is wrong because it states 'fewer than 9%' , so arriving at 25% would be incorrect by deducting 9 from 34....its could be anywhere between 25 and 34.
_________________

Thanks!

CEO
Joined: 29 Mar 2007
Posts: 2583
Followers: 19

Kudos [?]: 421 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

09 Oct 2007, 10:27
A nutritionist studying the effects of massive doses of vitamin C found that of a group of 600 people who regularly took 1,500 mg of vitamin C daily for a year, fewer than 9 percent suffered serious cases of flu; of a group of 600 people who took 250 mg of vitamin C (the standard recommended daily allowance) daily for a year, 34 percent suffered at least one serious case of flu; and of a group of 600 people who took no vitamin C for a year (other than that found in the foods in a balanced diet), 32 percent suffered at least one serious case of flu.
Which of the following hypotheses is best supported by the evidence above?

A. The effectiveness of vitamin C in preventing serious cases of flu increases in direct proportion to the amount of vitamin C taken.

B. Vitamin C is helpful in preventing disease.

C. Doses of vitamin C that exceed the standard recommended daily allowance by 500 percent will reduce the incidence of serious cases of flu by 25 percent.

D. Massive doses of vitamin C can help to prevent serious case of flu.

E. A balanced diet contains less than 250 mg of vitamin C

??????? I was going over questions I did in Gmatter last night.

Origanlly last night the answer was C, now today it says the answer is D???

What gives?
VP
Joined: 10 Jun 2007
Posts: 1459
Followers: 7

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

### Show Tags

09 Oct 2007, 10:49
GMATBLACKBELT wrote:
A nutritionist studying the effects of massive doses of vitamin C found that of a group of 600 people who regularly took 1,500 mg of vitamin C daily for a year, fewer than 9 percent suffered serious cases of flu; of a group of 600 people who took 250 mg of vitamin C (the standard recommended daily allowance) daily for a year, 34 percent suffered at least one serious case of flu; and of a group of 600 people who took no vitamin C for a year (other than that found in the foods in a balanced diet), 32 percent suffered at least one serious case of flu.
Which of the following hypotheses is best supported by the evidence above?

A. The effectiveness of vitamin C in preventing serious cases of flu increases in direct proportion to the amount of vitamin C taken.

B. Vitamin C is helpful in preventing disease.

C. Doses of vitamin C that exceed the standard recommended daily allowance by 500 percent will reduce the incidence of serious cases of flu by 25 percent.

D. Massive doses of vitamin C can help to prevent serious case of flu.

E. A balanced diet contains less than 250 mg of vitamin C

??????? I was going over questions I did in Gmatter last night.

Origanlly last night the answer was C, now today it says the answer is D???

What gives?

C for me
E is out of scope
A, B is not true. No vitamin produces less cases of flu
D could be true, but who defines massive???
C is more descriptive and it clearly explains.
Manager
Joined: 16 May 2007
Posts: 145
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 19 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

09 Oct 2007, 11:39
C for me.
Deducible from the arg...
Director
Joined: 11 Jun 2007
Posts: 931
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 175 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

09 Oct 2007, 11:51
strange i only get C for the answer. maybe there's something wrong with the software
Manager
Joined: 02 Oct 2007
Posts: 112
Followers: 1

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

### Show Tags

09 Oct 2007, 12:04
C is wrong because the reduction of 25% doesnt mean that the incidence of flu is reduced from 34 to 9%. It means that it is reduced 25%. so 34%-(34*.25) = 25.5%. This contradicts the arguments findings of 9%.

Tricky question. I changed my mind twice.

Last edited by JDMBA on 09 Oct 2007, 12:12, edited 2 times in total.
Director
Joined: 14 Sep 2007
Posts: 908
Schools: Kellogg '10
Followers: 6

Kudos [?]: 93 [0], given: 15

### Show Tags

09 Oct 2007, 12:08
Even without doing the math on C, I would choose D.

I feel it's too strong to say that it "will" reduce the incidence, whereas "can help" isn't so absolute.

It's probably a statistics/semantics argument, but I'm sticking with it!
Senior Manager
Joined: 02 Aug 2007
Posts: 347
Location: Greater New York City area
Schools: Tuck, Ross (R1), Duke, Tepper, ISB (R2), Kenan Flagler (R2)
Followers: 3

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

### Show Tags

09 Oct 2007, 12:09
For me the answer is D.
C is incorrect because when the incidence is 34% for normal dosage, a 25% reduction will mean 34% - 25% of 34% , which is 25.5%
Director
Joined: 14 Sep 2007
Posts: 908
Schools: Kellogg '10
Followers: 6

Kudos [?]: 93 [0], given: 15

### Show Tags

09 Oct 2007, 12:10
Edit: now that I've looked at the numbers, doesn't the increased dose lead to a 74% decrease?

It would be a ~25 percentage point decrease, but 25 percentage points is equal to 74% of the initial incidence.
Manager
Joined: 25 Aug 2007
Posts: 70
Schools: HBS '10
Followers: 1

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

### Show Tags

09 Oct 2007, 17:48
It could either be C or D.

You're right on the "25% decrease" is only 25% of 34%, not a 25% absolute drop.

But who says that 1,500 is a 'massive' dose. Massive is far too ambiguous. Massive to me would be like 15,000 ...

Don't worry about it - move on to the next one
Director
Joined: 09 Jul 2005
Posts: 595
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 57 [0], given: 0

nutritionist studying the effects of massive doses of vitami [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 Jan 2008, 03:31
A nutritionist studying the effects of massive doses of vitamin C found that of a group of 600 people who regularly took 1,500 mg of vitamin C daily for a year, fewer than 9 percent suffered serious cases of flu; of a group of 600 people who took 250 mg of vitamin C (the standard recommended daily allowance) daily for a year, 34 percent suffered at least one serious case of flu; and of a group of 600 people who took no vitamin C for a year (other than that found in the foods in a balanced diet), 32 percent suffered at least one serious case of flu.

Which of the following hypotheses is best supported by the evidence above?

(A) The effectiveness of vitamin C in preventing serious cases of flu increases in direct proportion to the amount of vitamin C taken.
(B) Vitamin C is helpful in preventing disease.
(C) Doses of vitamin C that exceed the standard recommended daily allowance by 500 percent will reduce the incidence of serious cases of flu by 25 percent.
(D) Massive doses of vitamin C can help to prevent serious case of flu.
(E) A balanced diet contains less than 250 mg of vitamin C.
Manager
Joined: 20 Jun 2007
Posts: 157
Followers: 1

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

Re: nutritionist studying the effects of massive doses of vitami [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 Jan 2008, 03:40
(A) The effectiveness of vitamin C in preventing serious cases of flu increases in direct proportion to the amount of vitamin C taken.
Not shown by the text
(B) Vitamin C is helpful in preventing disease.
Not proven
(E) A balanced diet contains less than 250 mg of vitamin C.
Not shown by the text

So between C and D.

I think D has a problem, because we have not defined what we can call massive dose.

So answer has to be C.
Manager
Joined: 22 Oct 2007
Posts: 120
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 60 [0], given: 0

Re: nutritionist studying the effects of massive doses of vitami [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 Jan 2008, 11:36
automan wrote:
A nutritionist studying the effects of massive doses of vitamin C found that of a group of 600 people who regularly took 1,500 mg of vitamin C daily for a year, fewer than 9 percent suffered serious cases of flu; of a group of 600 people who took 250 mg of vitamin C (the standard recommended daily allowance) daily for a year, 34 percent suffered at least one serious case of flu; and of a group of 600 people who took no vitamin C for a year (other than that found in the foods in a balanced diet), 32 percent suffered at least one serious case of flu.

Which of the following hypotheses is best supported by the evidence above?

(A) The effectiveness of vitamin C in preventing serious cases of flu increases in direct proportion to the amount of vitamin C taken. The evidence contradicts this hypotheses
(B) Vitamin C is helpful in preventing disease. the evidence talks about specific disease and does not mention anything abt diseases in general
(C) Doses of vitamin C that exceed the standard recommended daily allowance by 500 percent will reduce the incidence of serious cases of flu by 25 percent. A hypotheses is a message based on incomplete evidence. Hence it cannot be concluded to the point from evidence.
(D) Massive doses of vitamin C can help to prevent serious case of flu. This seems to be the best option
(E) A balanced diet contains less than 250 mg of vitamin C. contradicts the evidence
Manager
Joined: 02 Feb 2007
Posts: 120
Followers: 1

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

Re: nutritionist studying the effects of massive doses of vitami [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 Jan 2008, 12:39
I think it's D

C sounds beautiful, but 25% of 32 is not less than 9%, therefore is wrong.
Please correct me if i am wrong.
Director
Joined: 09 Jul 2005
Posts: 595
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 57 [0], given: 0

Re: nutritionist studying the effects of massive doses of vitami [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 Jan 2008, 13:36
automan wrote:
A nutritionist studying the effects of massive doses of vitamin C found that of a group of 600 people who regularly took 1,500 mg of vitamin C daily for a year, fewer than 9 percent suffered serious cases of flu; of a group of 600 people who took 250 mg of vitamin C (the standard recommended daily allowance) daily for a year, 34 percent suffered at least one serious case of flu; and of a group of 600 people who took no vitamin C for a year (other than that found in the foods in a balanced diet), 32 percent suffered at least one serious case of flu.

Which of the following hypotheses is best supported by the evidence above?

(A) The effectiveness of vitamin C in preventing serious cases of flu increases in direct proportion to the amount of vitamin C taken. The evidence contradicts this hypotheses
(B) Vitamin C is helpful in preventing disease. the evidence talks about specific disease and does not mention anything abt diseases in general
(C) Doses of vitamin C that exceed the standard recommended daily allowance by 500 percent will reduce the incidence of serious cases of flu by 25 percent. A hypotheses is a message based on incomplete evidence. Hence it cannot be concluded to the point from evidence.
(D) Massive doses of vitamin C can help to prevent serious case of flu. This seems to be the best option
(E) A balanced diet contains less than 250 mg of vitamin C. contradicts the evidence

I think you are right. C can be inferred from the information stated in the argument, but this is not an hypothesis. An hyphotesis requires us to conclude something from all the facts and evidences presented in the passage. Therefore D must be the correct anwer. Do you agree with me?
VP
Joined: 22 Nov 2007
Posts: 1092
Followers: 8

Kudos [?]: 486 [0], given: 0

Re: nutritionist studying the effects of massive doses of vitami [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Jan 2008, 05:35
automan wrote:
A nutritionist studying the effects of massive doses of vitamin C found that of a group of 600 people who regularly took 1,500 mg of vitamin C daily for a year, fewer than 9 percent suffered serious cases of flu; of a group of 600 people who took 250 mg of vitamin C (the standard recommended daily allowance) daily for a year, 34 percent suffered at least one serious case of flu; and of a group of 600 people who took no vitamin C for a year (other than that found in the foods in a balanced diet), 32 percent suffered at least one serious case of flu.

Which of the following hypotheses is best supported by the evidence above?

(A) The effectiveness of vitamin C in preventing serious cases of flu increases in direct proportion to the amount of vitamin C taken.
(B) Vitamin C is helpful in preventing disease.
(C) Doses of vitamin C that exceed the standard recommended daily allowance by 500 percent will reduce the incidence of serious cases of flu by 25 percent.
(D) Massive doses of vitamin C can help to prevent serious case of flu.
(E) A balanced diet contains less than 250 mg of vitamin C.

the only possible answers could be b/w C and D. D says "massive"doses..we don't know what a massive dose is. moreover, we don't know if taking vit C helps prevent..we know that it reduces...anyway C is wrong in that taking vit C doesn't reduce of 25%..we would have a 75%decrease...so OA is D
Manager
Joined: 22 Oct 2007
Posts: 120
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 60 [0], given: 0

Re: nutritionist studying the effects of massive doses of vitami [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Jan 2008, 10:21
michaelny2001 wrote:
I think it's D

C sounds beautiful, but 25% of 32 is not less than 9%, therefore is wrong.
Please correct me if i am wrong.

The hypotheses talks about the dosage being 500% more than normal daily dosage. Hence the decrease in no of flu cases also should be relative to the no of flu cases in population adhering to normal daily dosage (which is 34%). 25% less 34% = 9%.
I think C should be rejected on the basis of its accuracy rather than inaccuracy
Forum Moderator
Status: mission completed!
Joined: 02 Jul 2009
Posts: 1426
GPA: 3.77
Followers: 180

Kudos [?]: 853 [0], given: 621

### Show Tags

18 Mar 2010, 02:03
Hi,
I was lured by B that talk about preventing disease, not about case of flu, damn it.
_________________

Audaces fortuna juvat!

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings

Director
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
Posts: 954
WE 1: 3.5 yrs IT
WE 2: 2.5 yrs Retail chain
Followers: 76

Kudos [?]: 1271 [0], given: 40

### Show Tags

29 Apr 2010, 06:40
In D, it says - Massive doses of vitamin C can help to prevent serious case of flu. But, there are chances of still getting the flu.

So, I marked A.
_________________

Tricky Quant problems: http://gmatclub.com/forum/50-tricky-questions-92834.html
Important Grammer Fundamentals: http://gmatclub.com/forum/key-fundamentals-of-grammer-our-crucial-learnings-on-sc-93659.html

Re: CR-Gmatter wut????   [#permalink] 29 Apr 2010, 06:40

Go to page   Previous    1   2   3   4   5    Next  [ 81 posts ]

Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
An international study recently examined the effects of 11 15 Jul 2011, 08:53
1 In a study of the effect of color on productivity, 50 of 100 11 22 Jan 2009, 19:27
In a study of the effect of color on productivity, 50 of 100 1 02 Aug 2008, 11:31
9 A nutritionist studying the effects of massive doses of 13 30 Jan 2008, 05:38
A study was designed to establish what effect, if any, the 4 11 Mar 2007, 03:51
Display posts from previous: Sort by