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

 It is currently 04 Dec 2013, 16:08

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

first heart attack

Author Message
TAGS:
SVP
Joined: 16 Jul 2009
Posts: 1634
Schools: CBS
WE 1: 4 years (Consulting)
Followers: 27

Kudos [?]: 156 [0], given: 2

first heart attack [#permalink]  03 Jun 2010, 04:06
00:00

Difficulty:

5% (low)

Question Stats:

60% (01:31) correct 40% (01:54) wrong based on 5 sessions
Of 2,500 people who survived a first heart attack, those who did not smoke had their first heart attack at a median age of 62. However, of those 2,500, people who smoked two packs of cigarettes a day had their first heart attack at a median age of 51. On the basis of this information, it can be concluded that nonsmokers tend to have a first heart attack eleven years later than do people who smoke two packs of cigarettes a day.
The conclusion is incorrectly drawn from the information given because this information does not include
(A) the relative severity of heart attacks suffered by smokers and nonsmokers
(B) the nature of the different medical treatments that smokers and nonsmokers received after they had survived their first heart attack
(C) how many of the 2,500 people studied suffered a second heart attack
(D) the earliest age at which a person who smoked two packs a day had his or her first heart attack
(E) data on people who did not survive a first heart attack
_________________

The sky is the limit
800 is the limit

SVP
Joined: 16 Jul 2009
Posts: 1634
Schools: CBS
WE 1: 4 years (Consulting)
Followers: 27

Kudos [?]: 156 [0], given: 2

Re: first heart attack [#permalink]  03 Jun 2010, 04:10
Imagine this situation:

Ages of people who smoke >2 packets: 50 50 50 50 50 50 50....50 51 62 62 62 62 62 ....62
Ages of people who dont smoke: 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 ...50 62 62 62 62 62 62 ....62

Median of first groups: 51
Median of second groups: 62

Both groups tend to have a first heart attack not eleven years later than do people who smoke two packs of cigarettes a day, but at the same age, therefore the conclusion is incorrectly drawn.

For this reason, Im with D.
_________________

The sky is the limit
800 is the limit

Director
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
Posts: 957
WE 1: 3.5 yrs IT
WE 2: 2.5 yrs Retail chain
Followers: 46

Kudos [?]: 599 [0], given: 40

Re: first heart attack [#permalink]  03 Jun 2010, 05:14
It's a twisted FLAW in reasoning question. Good one.

IMO E.
If we dont know how many smokers/non-smokers survived their first encounter then it will be difficult to conclude. What if majority of NS die on first HA before the 51?

Argument states info only on first HA survivers but not on non-survivers. So, I go with my intuition here. This point is what E catches.

noboru wrote:
Of 2,500 people who survived a first heart attack, those who did not smoke had their first heart attack at a median age of 62. However, of those 2,500, people who smoked two packs of cigarettes a day had their first heart attack at a median age of 51. On the basis of this information, it can be concluded that nonsmokers tend to have a first heart attack eleven years later than do people who smoke two packs of cigarettes a day.
The conclusion is incorrectly drawn from the information given because this information does not include
(A) the relative severity of heart attacks suffered by smokers and nonsmokers
(B) the nature of the different medical treatments that smokers and nonsmokers received after they had survived their first heart attack
(C) how many of the 2,500 people studied suffered a second heart attack [Out of scope]
(D) the earliest age at which a person who smoked two packs a day had his or her first heart attack [Even if we are given at the earliest age of smokers, what about the earliest age of non-smokers? Incomplete info]
(E) data on people who did not survive a first heart attack [Correct]

_________________

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

SVP
Joined: 17 Feb 2010
Posts: 1564
Followers: 12

Kudos [?]: 145 [0], given: 6

Re: first heart attack [#permalink]  04 Jun 2010, 12:42
I think it is (E)...what is the OA?
Manager
Joined: 20 Apr 2010
Posts: 81
Schools: UCI R1- admit w/ \$\$\$, Cornell R3, McCombs R2- admitted, Kelley R3 - admitted, USC R1-waitlist
Followers: 1

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

Re: first heart attack [#permalink]  04 Jun 2010, 14:42
the argument has nothing to do with Non survivors.
it incorrectly generalizes about all non smokers and smokers because it assumes that all non smokers experienced HA at the same age from a median data.
Median does not tell you the age at which all smokers experience HA. Median is a median.

So as in D, one of the smokers might have experienced HA at the age of 10 and others at the median age. and the median would still be unchanged. Would the argument still be valid? No. [On top of that we do not know how many ppl, so you can assume that there must be something wrong generalizing from a median set.]
Manager
Joined: 14 Apr 2010
Posts: 236
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 10 [0], given: 1

Re: first heart attack [#permalink]  04 Jun 2010, 19:42
IMO it is "E"....The argument begins with a specific sample "of those who survived their first HA....." then in the end it generalizes to "all the non smokers and smokers"
What is the OA?
Re: first heart attack   [#permalink] 04 Jun 2010, 19:42
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
Of 2,500 people who survived a first heart attack, those who 5 09 Mar 2004, 18:10
SC- heart attack 5 01 Aug 2004, 14:05
CR: Heart attack 8 07 Jun 2005, 16:04
cr-heart attack 5 02 Feb 2007, 07:54
When a study of aspirin s ability to prevent heart attacks 4 01 Jul 2009, 01:15
Display posts from previous: Sort by