Last visit was: 24 Apr 2024, 10:51 It is currently 24 Apr 2024, 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.
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
SORT BY:
Date
Tags:
Show Tags
Hide Tags
User avatar
Intern
Intern
Joined: 08 May 2012
Posts: 10
Own Kudos [?]: 112 [26]
Given Kudos: 9
Location: India
Send PM
Most Helpful Reply
GMAT Club Legend
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Status: enjoying
Posts: 5265
Own Kudos [?]: 42103 [8]
Given Kudos: 422
Location: India
WE:Education (Education)
Send PM
User avatar
Intern
Intern
Joined: 01 Dec 2012
Posts: 28
Own Kudos [?]: 110 [6]
Given Kudos: 8
Concentration: Finance, Operations
GPA: 2.9
Send PM
General Discussion
avatar
Intern
Intern
Joined: 02 Sep 2012
Status:Working on GMAT
Affiliations: Purdue University - EE; RF Design - Telecommunication
Posts: 5
Own Kudos [?]: 5 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Location: United States
Concentration: Strategy, General Management
GPA: 3.16
WE:Design (Telecommunications)
Send PM
Re: installation of defibrillators [#permalink]
A law is being proposed that would require the installation of defibrillators, which are used to treat heart attacks, in new restaurants. However, a leading local restaurant owner opposes the law, saying that the vast majority of preventable heart attack deaths can be prevented by the timely employment of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR).

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the restaurant owner's argument?

A. Most individuals have no formal training in cardiopulmonary resuscitation.
B. Since new restaurants are but a small fraction of all restaurants in the area, the new law would be extremely narrow in scope.
C. The installation of defibrillators in new restaurants costs significantly less than the installation of fire suppression equipment.
D.In the area that the proposed law would cover, the average time required for emergency personnel to respond to medical emergencies was far less than that of the whole country.
E. The largest proportion of heart attack deaths result from situations in which no cardiopulmonary resuscitation-trained individuals are present.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Argument: the vast majority of preventable heart attack deaths can be prevented by the timely employment of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR)

A weakens the argument
B Irrelevant
C Irrelevant, Installing fire suppression, hopefully, has nothing to do with CPR :-D
D Irrelevant
E weakens the argument

Have to decide between A & E. Question asks "Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the restaurant owner's argument?"
- IMO E is the right answer because it refers to heart attack deaths, which has serious impact, as opposed to A, which only says most have no training.
User avatar
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
Joined: 11 Jul 2012
Affiliations: SAE
Posts: 380
Own Kudos [?]: 961 [1]
Given Kudos: 269
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Social Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V37
GPA: 3.5
WE:Project Management (Energy and Utilities)
Send PM
Re: installation of defibrillators [#permalink]
1
Kudos
+1A

Premise - A law is being proposed that would require the installation of defibrillators, which are used to treat heart attacks, in new restaurants.

Conclusion - However, a leading local restaurant owner opposes the law, saying that the vast majority of preventable heart attack deaths can be prevented by the timely employment of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR).

Anything which weakens the conclusion is our answer i.e anything which proves that vast majority of preventable heart attack deaths can NOT be prevented by the timely employment of CPR is our answer

A. Most individuals have no formal training in cardiopulmonary resuscitation. (Good option, if people do not know about CPR the conclusion becomes weak, let us keep this option for some time)
B. Since new restaurants are but a small fraction of all restaurants in the area, the new law would be extremely narrow in scope. (Irrelevant)
C. The installation of defibrillators in new restaurants costs significantly less than the installation of fire suppression equipment. (Fire suppression?? Out of Scope)
D. In the area that the proposed law would cover, the average time required for emergency personnel to respond to medical emergencies was far less than that of the whole country. (It is not related to CPR and does not solve our purpose)
E. The largest proportion of heart attack deaths result from situations in which no cardiopulmonary resuscitation-trained individuals are present. (It strengthen the conclusion i.e it might have been possible to avoid a few deaths if CPR trained individuals would have been present)

The only option we are left with is option A which should be our answer.


Why is the OA E? What am I doing worng here? :|

Originally posted by getgyan on 17 Sep 2012, 23:01.
Last edited by getgyan on 18 Sep 2012, 06:36, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Manager
Manager
Joined: 13 Feb 2010
Status:Prevent and prepare. Not repent and repair!!
Posts: 146
Own Kudos [?]: 417 [1]
Given Kudos: 282
Location: India
Concentration: Technology, General Management
GPA: 3.75
WE:Sales (Telecommunications)
Send PM
Re: installation of defibrillators [#permalink]
1
Kudos
getgyan wrote:
+1A

Premise - A law is being proposed that would require the installation of defibrillators, which are used to treat heart attacks, in new restaurants.

Conclusion - However, a leading local restaurant owner opposes the law, saying that the vast majority of preventable heart attack deaths can be prevented by the timely employment of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR).

Anything which weakens the conclusion is our answer i.e anything which proves that vast majority of preventable heart attack deaths can NOT be prevented by the timely employment of CPR is our answer

A. Most individuals have no formal training in cardiopulmonary resuscitation. (Good option, if people does not know about CPR the conclusion becomes weak, let us keep this option for some time)
B. Since new restaurants are but a small fraction of all restaurants in the area, the new law would be extremely narrow in scope. (Irrelevant)
C. The installation of defibrillators in new restaurants costs significantly less than the installation of fire suppression equipment. (Fire suppression?? Out of Scope)
D. In the area that the proposed law would cover, the average time required for emergency personnel to respond to medical emergencies was far less than that of the whole country. (It is not related to CPR and does not solve our purpose)
E. The largest proportion of heart attack deaths result from situations in which no cardiopulmonary resuscitation-trained individuals are present. (It strengthen the conclusion i.e it might have been possible to avoid a few deaths if CPR trained individuals would have been present)

The only option we are left with is option A which should be our answer.


Why is the OA E? What am I doing worng here? :|



The ans is E.

You eliminate BCD as they are out of scope.

Now between A and E- A talks about being trained in CPR which is not of relevance here. We are talking about deaths due to heart attacks.

If you look at E it says people are dying in which no CPR trained guys are present. That means its better to install the Defibrillators. This will weaken the restaurant owner's stand and this is what we want.

Hope this is clear.
Current Student
Joined: 04 May 2013
Posts: 218
Own Kudos [?]: 474 [0]
Given Kudos: 70
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Human Resources
Schools: XLRI GM"18
GPA: 4
WE:Human Resources (Human Resources)
Send PM
Re: A law is being proposed that would require the installation [#permalink]
A law is being proposed that would require the installation of defibrillators, which are used to treat heart attacks, in new restaurants. However, a leading local restaurateur opposes the law, saying that the vast majority of preventable heart attack deaths can be prevented by the timely employment of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR).

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the restaurateur’s argument?

Both A and E are prospective answers......
A. says "most individuals have no formal training in cardiopulmonary resuscitation". Most people may not be needed, just one will do. No formal training required... basic training will do......

E. says "The largest proportion of heart attack deaths result from situations in which no cardiopulmonary resuscitation-trained individuals are present". So, if a cardiopulmonary resuscitation-trained individual is not present, which is possible, likely hood of death is high..... Hence restaurateur's argument weakens.....
Current Student
Joined: 04 May 2013
Posts: 218
Own Kudos [?]: 474 [0]
Given Kudos: 70
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Human Resources
Schools: XLRI GM"18
GPA: 4
WE:Human Resources (Human Resources)
Send PM
Re: A law is being proposed that would require the installation [#permalink]
A law is being proposed that would require the installation of defibrillators, which are used to treat heart attacks, in new restaurants. However, a leading local restaurant owner opposes the law, saying that the vast majority of preventable heart attack deaths can be prevented by the timely employment of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR).

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the restaurant owner's argument?

A. Most individuals have no formal training in cardiopulmonary resuscitation. most people dont need to know... even one will do... wrong
B. Since new restaurants are but a small fraction of all restaurants in the area, the new law would be extremely narrow in scope. irrelevant..
C. The installation of defibrillators in new restaurants costs significantly less than the installation of fire suppression equipment. cost irrelevant
D.In the area that the proposed law would cover, the average time required for emergency personnel to respond to medical emergencies was far less than that of the whole country. relative responce time irrelevant
E. The largest proportion of heart attack deaths result from situations in which no cardiopulmonary resuscitation-trained individuals are present. correct.... in such a scenario if DEFIBRILLATOR WAS AVAILABLE the life could be saved..
User avatar
Intern
Intern
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Posts: 44
Own Kudos [?]: 75 [0]
Given Kudos: 22
Send PM
A law is being proposed that would require the installation [#permalink]
MOKSH wrote:
A law is being proposed that would require the installation of defibrillators, which are used to treat heart attacks, in new restaurants. However, a leading local restauranteur opposes the law, saying that the vast majority of preventable heart attack deaths can be prevented by the timely employment of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR).
Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the restauranteur's argument?

Most individuals have no formal training in cardiopulmonary resuscitation.
Since new restaurants are but a small fraction of all restaurants in the area, the new law would be extremely narrow in scope.
The installation of defibrillators in new restaurants costs significantly less than the installation of fire suppression equipment.
In the area that the proposed law would cover, the average time required for emergency personnel to respond to medical emergencies was far less than that of the whole country.
The largest proportion of heart attack deaths result from situations in which no cardiopulmonary resuscitation-trained individuals are present.

I am struggling between A & E rest are OFS
Please differentiate the both options effectively , so that it could easily understood .

Thanks in advance

MOKSH
KUDO , if u like or it helps u !



My take is Option E. I took a simple approach.
Question Stem:
A law requires installation of defibrillators. However, a leading restaurant owner oppose the law and states that timely employment of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) will prevent the heart attack.

Option B, C, and D are straight away out. Let me know if you need me to explain those options.

Option A: Most individuals have no formal training in cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Okay, but what if that even though the individuals had no formal training but they can still operate the CPR (by reading user manual). Formal training is not a prerequisite to use the CPR. The option leaves that possibility.

Option E: "The largest proportion of heart attack deaths result from situations in which no cardiopulmonary resuscitation-trained individuals are present". Hmm interesting. Okay, restaurant owner (who oppose the law), you have the CPR. But what if the heart attacks are actually caused by the CPR since during the emergency situation no CPR trained individuals are present.
E is the correct answer.

Thanks,
Chanakya

Hit kudos if you like the explanation!
Intern
Intern
Joined: 06 Mar 2018
Posts: 11
Own Kudos [?]: 92 [0]
Given Kudos: 14
Location: India
Schools: IIMA IIMB IIMC
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V29
GMAT 2: 710 Q49 V37
Send PM
A law is being proposed that would require the installation [#permalink]
sajini wrote:
A law is being proposed that would require the installation of defibrillators, which are used to treat heart attacks, in new restaurants. However, a leading local restaurant owner opposes the law, saying that the vast majority of preventable heart attack deaths can be prevented by the timely employment of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR).

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the restaurant owner's argument?

A. Most individuals have no formal training in cardiopulmonary resuscitation.
B. Since new restaurants are but a small fraction of all restaurants in the area, the new law would be extremely narrow in scope.
C. The installation of defibrillators in new restaurants costs significantly less than the installation of fire suppression equipment.
D.In the area that the proposed law would cover, the average time required for emergency personnel to respond to medical emergencies was far less than that of the whole country.
E. The largest proportion of heart attack deaths result from situations in which no cardiopulmonary resuscitation-trained individuals are present.



I have narrowed it down to A and E. IMO,
A is not the correct answer because we don't require most individuals to have formal training in CPR. Even if a few are there, they can provide CPR services to the needy. We don't require say like 50% of the population to know CPR procedures.

E is correct because if CPR trained individuals are not there where majority of heart attacks ocur, then this will definitely weaken the argument.
Manager
Manager
Joined: 23 Dec 2011
Posts: 66
Own Kudos [?]: 81 [0]
Given Kudos: 131
Send PM
Re: A law is being proposed that would require the installation [#permalink]
Took more than 2 minutes to answer this question. I was struggling between A and E. Selected E just because it is considering both - deaths from heart attack and availability of someone who can perform the CPR.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
Joined: 10 Aug 2021
Posts: 374
Own Kudos [?]: 35 [0]
Given Kudos: 226
Send PM
Re: A law is being proposed that would require the installation [#permalink]
A and E seem to be same meaning to me. As E says “no cardiopulmonary resuscitation-trained individuals are present”, that suggests CPR need to be trained, so why is A wrong? Pls offer OE.
Intern
Intern
Joined: 04 Apr 2024
Posts: 5
Own Kudos [?]: 0 [0]
Given Kudos: 4
Send PM
Re: A law is being proposed that would require the installation [#permalink]
I'm guessing the answer should be A. The argument talks about employing people who know CPR, which means E can be avoided. However if very little people know how to perform a CPR, it becomes difficult to employ such people and installing the defib will be easier.

IMO A.

Bunuel, GMATNinja, hopefully someone can look into this.
Intern
Intern
Joined: 21 Sep 2023
Posts: 1
Own Kudos [?]: 0 [0]
Given Kudos: 2
Send PM
Re: A law is being proposed that would require the installation [#permalink]
Need explanation on how to eliminate option D.
GMAT Club Bot
Re: A law is being proposed that would require the installation [#permalink]
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6917 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
238 posts
CR Forum Moderator
832 posts

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne