|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 15 Jun 2007
Posts: 104
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 0
|
Though sucking zinc lozenges has been promoted as a [#permalink]
 11 Jul 2007, 18:57
Question Stats:
0% (00:00) correct
 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions
Though sucking zinc lozenges has been promoted as a treatment for the common cold, research has revealed no consistent effect. Recently, however, a zinc gel applied nasally has been shown to greatly reduce the duration of colds. Since the gel contains zinc in the same form and concentration as the lozenges, the greater effectiveness of the gel must be due to the fact that cold viruses tend to concentrate in the nose, not the mouth.
In order to evaluate the argument, it would be most helpful to determine which of the following?
A. Whether zinc is effective only against colds, or also has an effect on other virally caused diseases
B. Whether there are remedies that do not contain zinc but that, when taken orally, can reduce the duration of colds
C. Whether people who frequently catch colds have a zinc deficiency
D. Whether either the zinc gel or the lozenges contain ingredients that have an impact on the activity of the zinc
E. Whether the zinc gel has an effect on the severity of cold symptoms, as well as on their duration
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 12 Apr 2007
Posts: 171
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
1
[0], given: 0
|
B
if the cold is curable through oral means, then the conclusion is weakened and that concentration may be in the mouth
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 05 Jul 2007
Posts: 57
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
1
[0], given: 0
|
I think it's D
Because zinc taken nasally reduces the effects of the cold while the oral form does not, it shows IMO that zinc is effective. Maybe something in the composition of the lozenge that happens to be absent from the gel cancels out the healing effect of oral zinc treatment.
It's not asking to strengthen or weaken the argument, just to evaluate it. Otherwise, B seems like the weakening option. I just think D helps us to better evaluate the subject matter.
Any other thoughts?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 06 Mar 2006
Posts: 498
Followers: 6
Kudos [?]:
48
[0], given: 1
|
simonsanchez wrote: I think it's D
Because zinc taken nasally reduces the effects of the cold while the oral form does not, it shows IMO that zinc is effective. Maybe something in the composition of the lozenge that happens to be absent from the gel cancels out the healing effect of oral zinc treatment.
It's not asking to strengthen or weaken the argument, just to evaluate it. Otherwise, B seems like the weakening option. I just think D helps us to better evaluate the subject matter.
Any other thoughts?
I agree with simonsanchez. I like D as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 04 Jun 2007
Posts: 357
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
9
[0], given: 0
|
stevegt wrote: Though sucking zinc lozenges has been promoted as a treatment for the common cold, research has revealed no consistent effect. Recently, however, a zinc gel applied nasally has been shown to greatly reduce the duration of colds. Since the gel contains zinc in the same form and concentration as the lozenges, the greater effectiveness of the gel must be due to the fact that cold viruses tend to concentrate in the nose, not the mouth.
In order to evaluate the argument, it would be most helpful to determine which of the following?
A. Whether zinc is effective only against colds, or also has an effect on other virally caused diseases
B. Whether there are remedies that do not contain zinc but that, when taken orally, can reduce the duration of colds
C. Whether people who frequently catch colds have a zinc deficiency
D. Whether either the zinc gel or the lozenges contain ingredients that have an impact on the activity of the zinc
E. Whether the zinc gel has an effect on the severity of cold symptoms, as well as on their duration
Has to be B. Activity of zinc cannot help us determine the part in bold. Hence, cannot be D.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 01 Mar 2007
Posts: 35
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 0
|
Donno. Not really convinced by the answers given thus far by people. I feel it should be E 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 06 Jul 2004
Posts: 480
Location: united states
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
6
[0], given: 0
|
sumande wrote: stevegt wrote: Though sucking zinc lozenges has been promoted as a treatment for the common cold, research has revealed no consistent effect. Recently, however, a zinc gel applied nasally has been shown to greatly reduce the duration of colds. Since the gel contains zinc in the same form and concentration as the lozenges, the greater effectiveness of the gel must be due to the fact that cold viruses tend to concentrate in the nose, not the mouth.
In order to evaluate the argument, it would be most helpful to determine which of the following?
A. Whether zinc is effective only against colds, or also has an effect on other virally caused diseases
B. Whether there are remedies that do not contain zinc but that, when taken orally, can reduce the duration of colds
C. Whether people who frequently catch colds have a zinc deficiency
D. Whether either the zinc gel or the lozenges contain ingredients that have an impact on the activity of the zinc
E. Whether the zinc gel has an effect on the severity of cold symptoms, as well as on their duration Has to be B. Activity of zinc cannot help us determine the part in bold. Hence, cannot be D. agree with Suman. Even if D is true, one can't tell with confidence that cold viruses concenrate in nose, not in mouth.
_________________
for every person who doesn't try because he is
afraid of loosing , there is another person who
keeps making mistakes and succeeds..
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 749
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
8
[0], given: 0
|
I agree with the D people. B. to me, seems out of scope.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 14 Jan 2007
Posts: 787
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
32
[0], given: 0
|
Should be 'E'.
In order to evaluate the argument, we need to be sure that the zinc gel reduces the cold severity as well as the cold duration. Reduction of cold duration is mentioned earlier. But reduction in cold severity is not mentioned.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 24 Aug 2006
Posts: 116
Location: Nigeria
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 0
|
To zinc or not to zinc. [#permalink]
13 Jul 2007, 04:52
I think the answer is D.Because it gives a reason other than what is presented in the argument,As if questions whether there are other reasons.I am only worried if i have gone out of scope.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 17 Sep 2005
Posts: 934
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
14
[0], given: 0
|
I believe it's D.
-Brajesh
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 06 Mar 2006
Posts: 498
Followers: 6
Kudos [?]:
48
[0], given: 1
|
So, what is the OA and OE to this one? Can somebody post it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 29 Jul 2006
Posts: 877
Followers: 3
Kudos [?]:
10
[0], given: 0
|
asaf wrote: I agree with the D people. B. to me, seems out of scope.
Agree with asaf...The argument is abt zinc substances...B is way out of scope.
D is the answer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 22 Oct 2006
Posts: 1446
Schools: Chicago Booth '11
Followers: 7
Kudos [?]:
136
[0], given: 12
|
yea it's got to be D
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Vercules, Legendaddy, noboru, Marcab, metallicafan, rajeevrks27, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, souvik101990, doe007, MacFauz, PTK, carcass, kissthegmat, Narenn
|
close
