Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
Ordinary mountain sickness, a common condition among [#permalink]
31 Jul 2004, 11:59
100% (01:08) correct
0% (00:00) wrong based on 1 sessions
Ordinary mountain sickness, a common condition among mountain climbers, and one from which most people can recover, is caused by the characteristic shortage of oxygen in the atmosphere at high altitudes.
Cerebral edema, a rarer disruption of blood circulation in the brain that quickly becomes life-threatening if not correctly treated from its onset, can also be caused by a shortage of oxygen. Since the symptoms of cerebral edema resemble those of ordinary mountain sickness, cerebral edema is especially dangerous at high altitudes.
Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
(A) The treatment for ordinary mountain sickness differs from the treatment for cerebral edema.
(B) Cerebral edema can cause those who suffer from it to slip into a coma within a few hours.
(C) Unlike cerebral edema, ordinary mountain sickness involves no disruption of blood circulation in the brain.
(D) Shortage of oxygen at extremely high altitude is likely to affect thinking processes and cause errors of judgment.
(E) Most people who suffer from ordinary mountain sickness recover without any special treatment.
A it is for me also. 2 min. Tough one.
The argument implies that both diseases are different and is pointing to the fact that edema is a more dangerous disease. The author also says that the danger is only more heightened in high altitudes because the symptoms of both diseases are similar. If both treatments and symptoms were the same, then how can we say that edema is more dangerous? A has to be an assumption.
C needs not be true
Cerebral edema is only a rarer disruption of blood circulation in the brain. This by no means implies that ordinary mountain sickness no blood disruption at all.
Negate it, if the treatment is the same, the conclusion (its more dangerous) falls apart, since even if you mistook one disease for the other, you would still effectively cure the actual disease with the treatement, and hence it wouldn't be more dangerous.