Of 2,500 people who survived a first heart attack, those who did not

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.]

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?

IMHO, E



A:Severity of heart attack is out of scope
B:Medical treatment is out of scope
C:2nd heart attack is out of scope
D: Knowing the earliest age does not help in any way to determine anything when we are considering medians.
E:The conclusion compares smokers and non smokers in general whether they survived or not but the data in hand says nothing about those who died of their first heart attack. Such a conclusion cannot be made from that so this is Correct

Initially, I also thought that it would be D because it is the only choice which speaks about the age of the persons involved.

(A) the relative severity of heart attacks suffered by smokers and nonsmokers
Severity doesnt matter, the comaprison is about the first heart attack
(B) the nature of the different medical treatments that smokers and nonsmokers received after they had survived their first heart attack
What happens after the heart attach doesnt matter, for this argument
(C) how many of the 2,500 people studied suffered a second heart attack
Second heart attack is out of question
(D) the earliest age at which a person who smoked two packs a day had his or her first heart attack
Correct. The conclusion is, difference of 11 years to have first heart attack between non-smokers and smokers. This conclusion is invalid if majority of this median is before or after 51 years. So 11 years difference is wrong indicator.
(E) data on people who did not survive a first heart attack
What happens after the heart attack is irrelevent for the conclusion, read the conclusion carefully.

First of all, the OA is E. This is an Official LSAT Question (Test #10 of "10 Actual Tests").

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

Note that the argument focuses its premises on people who survived their first heart attack. The argument however makes a broader statement in its conclusion: "people who smoke" (note that the "survivor" qualifier is now gone). What if significantly more smokers had their first heart attack at, say, 10 years old, but they ALL DIED? Therefore, the conclusion that nonsmokers tend to have a first heart attack 11 years later than do people who smoke is INVALID. You see, by broadening its conclusion, it had made an unwarranted generalisation.

And yes you are correct, read the conclusion carefully.

By mapping the argument we see that of those that survived their first heart attack, the median age at which a person suffered a heart attack was lower for those that smoked. We need to try to find a reason this conclusion was incorrectly drawn.

(A) the relative severity of heart attacks suffered by smokers and nonsmokers
The severity of the heart attack really has nothing to do with the median age at which a person first suffers from a heart attack. Therefore this does not really affect the conclusion.

(B) the nature of the different medical treatments that smokers and nonsmokers received after they had survived their first heart attack
The medical treatment after a heart attack does not affect the median age at which a person will first suffer a heart attack.

(C) how many of the 2,500 people studied suffered a second heart attack
This is not relevant to the difference in median age at which a person first suffers a heart attack.

(D) the earliest age at which a person who smoked two packs a day had his or her first heart attack
There could be outliers that lead to inconclusive data. For example someone with a genetic condition could have a heart attack at an age earlier than 51 whether or not they smoked.

(E) data on people who did not survive a first heart attack
This sample population could potentially affect the difference in the median age at which smokers vs. non-smokers get their first heart attack

---> The correct answer is E

please explain why E is the correct answer?

GMATNinja egmat

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

Would you please explain your logic with example.
auradediligodo

I hope this example will clarify any doubts.

thanks a lot for response [img]%20%20%20%20[/img]
auradediligodo

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.