Premise 1: Damaged nerves in the spinal cord do not regenerate themselves naturally, nor even under the spur of nerve-growth stimulants.
Premise 2: The reason, recently discovered, is the presence of nerve-growth inhibitors in the spinal cord.
Premise 3: Antibodies that deactivate those inhibitors have now been developed.
Conclusion: Clearly, then, nerve repair will be a standard medical procedure in the foreseeable future.
Which of the following, if true, casts the most serious doubt on the accuracy of the prediction above?
(A) Prevention of the regeneration of damaged nerves is merely a by-product of the main function in the human body of the substances inhibiting nerve growth. => This choice stated that the inhibitor is from the main function of human body. If the researcher develop the antibody to inhibitor, this kind of antibody may cause harm effect to the human body.
(B) Certain nerve-growth stimulants have similar chemical structures to those of the antibodies against nerve-growth inhibitors. => Similar chemical structures do not make researcher get difficulties to develop the treatment. Instead, it will help them. This choice is strengthen one.
(C) Nerves in the brain are similar to nerves in the spinal cord in their inability to regenerate themselves naturally. => nerves in brain is out of scope.
(D) Researchers have been able to stimulate the growth of nerves not located in the spinal cord by using only nerve-growth stimulants. => this choice is irrelevant to the development of new treatment.
(E) Deactivating the substances inhibiting nerve growth for an extended period would require a steady supply of antibodies. => neutral. Not weaken. This kind of answer like the description
Rules for posting in verbal gmat forum, read it before posting anything in verbal forum
Giving me + 1 kudos if my post is valuable with you