The only purpose for which a particular type of tape is needed is to

I'd agree with this.

The claim is that it "will prove healing."

Improving healing is based on 1) how long the wound takes to heal and 2) how long the tape holds.
The sentence says that the max healing time is 10 days.

So a) would actually improve the claim because it undermines the "max 10 days" thing, suggesting a potential use for the new tape.
b) As someone said, is out of scope.
d) and e) are referencing situations (clean skin, chemically treated skin) that are not referenced in the opening sentence, and one can assume such situations are irrelevant or redundant (what kind of doctor is going to dress a dirty wound?)

c) doesn't contradict the "max 10 days" and it goes on to state that current tape will hold for 10 days or more, meaning the new tape would act no differently, thereby NOT improving (or deterring) healing.

So by logic AND processes of elimination it's gotta be C.

Confusion should be between C and E.

E is incorrect because it is trying to break the Facts. Remember, in an Argument, a Fact is a source of truth which cannot be broken down.

Option C clearly says that the current adhesiveness is more than sufficient, so why do we need an increase in adhesiveness. Hence, a weakener and a correct answer.

the claim is that the adhesiveness is stronger and that the wound will heal faster. The question asks us to undermine the claims A and/or B. So shouldn't we choose an answer choice that undermines the claim factually rather than undermining the claims effectiveness?

Hey shivamtibrewala ,

Remember that on GMAT, breaking a premise is STRICTLY not allowed. Facts/premises are the source of truth on which the entire argument holds.

Only thing that you can break is the Conclusion.

Does that make sense?

GMATNinja VeritasKarishma MentorTutoring
I am unable to eliminate A and E.
Option A-Most surgical wounds take about ten days to heal.
If surgical wounds take 10 days to heal, then whether someone uses Newtape or old, it doesn't matter.
Thus Newtape’s salespeople claim that Newtape will improve healing is wrong.

Option E-Newtape’s adhesion to skin that has been coated with a special chemical preparation is only half as good as the currently used tape’s adhesion to such coated skin.
Why Salespeople made the claim at firstplace ? because they believe Newtape adheres twice as long as the currently used tape does.
But now option E weaken that reason.
Hence E can be correct.

Experts Please explain.

Why is A wrong? It says most wounds take 10 days to heal, doesnt it mean that the new tape will not improve healing, as tape that can adhere to skin longer than 10 days is not needed?

i shortlisted A, C and E in my first reading. But I chose C in the end because C is better option than A.

Read the question again:
Which of the following statements, if true, would most seriously call into question the claim made by Newtape’s salespeople?

If no C option, I could consider A.

Now to attack A:
my 2 cents:

(A) Most surgical wounds take about ten days to heal.
issue1: about 10 days? what if it takes 11 days then new tape would be much better, is not it?
Issue2: Most wounds: what if some wounds takes longer then still new tape would be better

Our question: weaken the conclusion
But 2 issues are tiled towards strengthening the conclusion.
So we can reject A in presence of C.

(C) The currently used tape’s adhesiveness is more than sufficient to hold wounds closed for ten days.
when you can resolve the issue with current taps and is more than enough, what make sense to buy a better tape? It would be useless
Thus weakening the conclusion.
No ifs and buts in C.

I hope it helps.

Notice the passage says 'the only purpose for which a particular type of tape is needed is to hold certain surgical wounds closed for ten days.' Therefore, the argument only pertains to a particular type of surgical wound.

Choice A talks about most surgical wounds, but we're not interested in what happens with most surgical wounds -- only a particular type of surgical wood that takes a maximum of ten days to heal.

Choice E talks about a particular circumstance in which Newtape's adhesion is not as good as the currently used tape's adhesion. Does this weaken Newtape's claim? Newtape can still improve healing overall -- just not in this particular circumstance. E is out.

Choice C tells us that the currently used tape's adhesiveness is more than sufficient for its needs. Perfect.

I understand why option C is correct, but can't understand why exactly option E is incorrect. Please help

Hey!

I don't think I'll be saying anything that hasn't already been said by a couple of users above, but essentially (E) is wrong because it attempts to weaken the argument's conclusion by citing a particular circumstance in which the adhesive isn't as effective as the competitor's withoutestablishing whether that circumstance is in any way related to the tape's ability to aid in the healing process. Unless we assume that this special chemical solution is a necessary or at least commonly relied upon part of the healing process, the lowered effectiveness of the adhesive in the presence of that special chemical solution is irrelevant to the argument's claim.

Let's look at this extremely common wrong-answer type (the "requires an extra assumption" type) in a different context. Imagine there was an argument that claimed that Tire A was able to help a car come to a stop on roads twice as fast as Tire B. The argument might claim, therefore, that Tire A will help to prevent auto accidents better than Tire B. A "requires an extra assumption" answer might say something to the effect of "In tests, it has been shown that Tire A is only half as effective as Tire B at stopping cars driving through Jello." Certainly that's a disadvantage to Tire A, but without any statements establishing that the roads in Tire A's sales area are routinely slathered with Jello, it's hard to say that this would constitute a practical disadvantage for Tire A.

Hello experts
I'm confused between choice-C and choice-E
both are weakner, I've to sort out which one is a strong weakner.

CLAIM -
Newtape’s salespeople claim that Newtape will improve healing because Newtape adheres twice as long as the currently used tape does.
Q -
Which of the following statements, if true, would most seriously call into question the claim made by Newtape’s salespeople?

here, I have to weaken the claim. the claim - Newtape will improve healing

Choice-C :

current one : already sufficient. = 100%
New one : it's better than current one to hold on. = 100% .BUT NO IMPROVEMENT. (Improvement = 0)

Yes, it definitely weakens the claim

Choice-E


current one : adhesion is better - let say 90%
New one : adhesion is half of current one - 45%

this choice seems to show NEGATIVE improvement. (Improvement = -ve)


I selected choice-E.
-> from previous replies on this thread, I can see that some members have quoted Choice-E wrong because it talks about a specific case but still it weakens the claim.


How to reject choice-E on solid grounds in this Q ?

Hi RonTargetTestPrep

I had narrowed down to Option A & C and ended up selecting A.

As stated that "Newtape will improve healing because Newtape adheres twice as long as the currently used tape does" and Option A states that "Most surgical wounds take about 10 days", it seemed like using Newtape for improved healing will not be effective as healing anyways take 10 days and thus the current tape can be used.

Please can you advise.

Thanks
Kitty

This is the precise reason why C is correct! The only thing the tape needs to do is hold the wound shut for 10 days.

If C is true, then the current brand of tape already holds wounds shut for 10 days, whereas Newtape can hold them shut for up to 20 days. But those results are exactly equivalent here: Both of them are perfectly satisfactory (and neither is any better or worse than the other), because all we need is to satisfy the condition "holds for ≥10 days".


Choice A doesn't contribute any value, because we already have the required job description for tape (it needs to hold a wound shut for ≥10 days) and choice A doesn't affect that job description in any way.
That choice might give a little more detail about WHY we need the tape to hold for ≥10 days, but the "why" isn't relevant to this problem.

Understanding the argument -
We are talking about "certain surgical wounds."
Ten days—the maximum time such wounds need tape

What claim - Newtape will improve healing.
How - Newtape adheres twice as long as the currently used tape does. (fact).

(A) Most surgical wounds take about ten days to heal. - The argument talks about "certain surgical wounds" and not MOST. And we already know it takes 10 days - but the question is, will 20 days of tape be better than 10 days - we don't know - MOST is out of scope.

(B) Most surgical tape is purchased by hospitals and clinics rather than by individual surgeons. - who purchases it doesn't matter - out of scope.

(C) The currently used tape’s adhesiveness is more than sufficient to hold wounds closed for ten days. - exactly. If the 0-degree temperature is more than sufficient to freeze water (considering the important point here is making ice and not the time), then even if you take it to -100, will the 0-degree ice be better than -100-degree ice? No. It's just a waste of resources. Sorry for the weird example but likewise, when ten days are MORE THAN sufficient, 20 days will not IMPROVE the healing.

(D) Neither Newtape nor the currently used tape adheres well to skin that has not been cleaned. - The question is not how well they adhere. The question is whether 20 days of adherence will IMPROVE healing.

(E) Newtape’s adhesion to skin that has been coated with a special chemical preparation is only half as good as the currently used tape’s adhesion to such coated skin. - Maybe Newtape's adhesion is half as good as the currently used tape; the fact (and we don't challenge the facts) supporting the premise says it lasts for 20 days, so even if its adhesion is only half as effective it still lasts for 20 days, and the conclusion still holds.

Hi KarishmaB MartyMurray gmatophobia

Isn't option C already stated in the argument?
(C) The currently used tape’s adhesiveness is more than sufficient to hold wounds closed for ten days.

The only purpose for which a particular type of tape is needed is to hold certain surgical wounds closed for ten days—the maximum time such wounds need tape

the only purpose of particular tape is to hold wounds closed for 10 days. Doesn't it imply that tape holds wounds for 10 days?

And why option A is wrong?

In answering CR questions, it's often key to notice the difference between statements.

The statement in the passage is about "the only purpose" of the tape.

Choice (C) is about how "sufficient" the adhesiveness of a particular version of the tape is.

The fact that the tape has a certain purpose does not mean a particular version of the tape is sufficiently adhesive to achieve that purpose.

So, (C) does provide new information, information that is not provided by the passage.


Choice (A) just qualifies and explains what we know about wounds. The passage states as fact that wounds "need such tape" for a maximum of ten days. We don't know why.

Then, choice (A) explains why wounds need such tape for a maximum of ten days, they "take about ten days to heal."

That explanation does not cast doubt on the claim. Rather, it helps to make the information upon which the claim is based more complete.

The only purpose for which a particular type of tape is needed is to hold certain surgical wounds closed for ten days—the maximum time such wounds need tape.

Say there are two types of tapes - regular and sticky. The only reason we need sticky tape is to hold certain wounds closed for 10 days. Do the current brands of this tape satisfy this requirement adequately or is it still a work in progress? We don't know. Look at it from a real world perspective. For certain wounds we need stronger tape so we use a special kind of tape but does it serve the purpose well or is it the best that we have till now? Better than others but not adequate?
Though note that I say this because of the available options. Otherwise I would have assumed that this particular tape does hold the wound closed for 10 days.

Newtape is a new brand of this type of tape. Newtape’s salespeople claim that Newtape will improve healing because Newtape adheres twice as long as the currently used tape does.

Newtape adheres for twice as long as current brands so it will improve healing.

What weakens that Newtape will improve healing?

(A) Most surgical wounds take about ten days to heal.

So more than 50% wounds take about 10 days to heal so need sticky tape. Does this weaken that Newtape will improve healing? No. It just talks about what percentage of wounds need sticky tape.

(B) Most surgical tape is purchased by hospitals and clinics rather than by individual surgeons.

Out of scope.

(C) The currently used tape’s adhesiveness is more than sufficient to hold wounds closed for ten days.

If the current tapes are good enough i.e. they are able to hold the wound together for 10 days, will having a tape that holds them for 20 days help? No. If only 10 days are required, it doesn't matter whether the sticky tape can go on for longer. Hence Newtape will not 'improve' healing because current tapes serve the purpose well enough already.

(D) Neither Newtape nor the currently used tape adheres well to skin that has not been cleaned.


Irrelevant. Doesn't tell us whether Newtape will improve healing. Just says that Newtape is similar to other stick tapes in one aspect.

(E) Newtape’s adhesion to skin that has been coated with a special chemical preparation is only half as good as the currently used tape’s adhesion to such coated skin.

Doesn't say whether these wounds that need sticky tape need that chemical preparation. It just says that if that chemical is used then Newtape is not good. But is that chemical used for some purpose? We don't know.

Answer (C)

Check out these videos:
https://youtu.be/55QgRwZmFRo
https://youtu.be/Q5SG0ZZcHKA