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:
Recently, the research and development departments at major [#permalink]
26 Sep 2006, 22:20
0% (00:00) correct
100% (01:27) wrong based on 1 sessions
Recently, the research and development departments at major pharmaceutical companies have been experimenting with new injections that provide the boost in iron that anemic children need to reverse their condition. These companies have expressed confidence that children who are suffering from anemia will be cured relatively simply through the use of such biochemical supplements.
In concluding that the biochemical remedy being developed will have its desired effect, the pharmaceutical companies assume that
(A) major pharmaceutical companies have the primary responsibility to cure childhood anemia
(B) a low iron level in the body is the major factor influencing the incidence of anemia in children
(C) a diet rich in iron cannot improve the conditions of children suffering from anemia to the point that biochemical supplements would become unnecessary
(D) children afflicted with anemia will find out about and submit to injections that can reverse their conditions
(E) the use of biochemical supplements is the safest way to cure anemia in children
The authorâ€™s conclusion is the companiesâ€™ confidence that anemic children will be cured relatively simply with a new iron injection. The evidence is the first sentence: A new injection can apparently reverse childrenâ€™s anemia. Can you see any gaps between the conclusion and evidence? Notice that the evidence explains that something can be done and the conclusion states that something will be done. Just because the cure is possible doesnâ€™t mean it will automatically be administered. Any number of factors could serve to block implementation. The author assumes that children will receive the injection based on the fact that it exists. Choice (D) expresses this more concretely: the author assumes that children are aware of and willing to receive this injection.
The argument concerns whether the cure will become available. Choice (A) is concerned with who has primary responsibility for the cure. This is outside the scope. Choice (B) gives us outside the scope information about causes. The author states that iron shots reverse childrenâ€™s anemia, regardless of the specific cause, so Choice (B) need not be assumed. Choice (C) states that a managed diet would not cure anemia. But the author doesnâ€™t state that the injection is the only cure for anemia, so the argument neednâ€™t assume that no other cure exists. Choice (E) is both extreme and outside the scope. The author only claims that the injection cures anemia "relatively simply." Safety never comes up as an issue and there is no need to assume that the injections are the safest method to reverse anemia.
Assumption is always implicit and is not stated in the passage.
The fact that anemic children need a boost in iron levels in stated in the passage hence option B which states this cannot be the assumption.
Also, option C suggests an alternative solution to iron injections i.e diet rich in iron. Hence this is not an assumption either. This would be the correct answer choice if the question was a strengthen/weaken one because then we would need to look at cause and effect.
A and E are irrelevent.
Hence D _________________
Try and try until you succeed! There is just no giving up!