|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 13 Jul 2010
Posts: 173
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
11
[0], given: 7
|
Re: CR: heart attack [#permalink]
 09 Dec 2010, 09:11
Agree with A. Thought of E for a second because it caused other health problems to patients (even though not death) but it also only referred to some people instead of the greater majority.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 19 Oct 2010
Posts: 242
Location: India
Concentration: Marketing, Finance
GMAT 1: 560 Q36 V31
GPA: 3
Followers: 5
Kudos [?]:
10
[0], given: 21
|
Re: CR: heart attack [#permalink]
12 Jan 2011, 08:24
Option A. This is the only choice the picks a hole in the spokesman's reasoning that the drug will save lives of heart attack victims.
_________________
petrifiedbutstanding
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 19 Oct 2010
Posts: 242
Location: India
Concentration: Marketing, Finance
GMAT 1: 560 Q36 V31
GPA: 3
Followers: 5
Kudos [?]:
10
[0], given: 21
|
Re: CR: heart attack [#permalink]
12 Jan 2011, 08:25
Of course, it picks a hole with reference to the passage above.
_________________
petrifiedbutstanding
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 21 Nov 2010
Posts: 141
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
2
[0], given: 12
|
Re: CR: heart attack [#permalink]
02 Dec 2011, 00:30
spriya wrote: fiesta wrote: Thousands who suffer heart attacks each year die before reaching a hospital or clinic where they can benefit from the drugs that dissolve clots in coronary arteries. The Food and Drug Administration recently approved a new blood clot dissolving agent, which a spokesman claimed could save the lives of many people who would otherwise join this group of heart attack victims.
Q: Which of the following, if true, would seriously weaken the argument above?
A. The new agent must be administered by a team of doctors in a hospital or clinic setting.
B. Many heart attack victims die unnecessarily even though they reach a hospital or clinic in time
C. The new agent can be effectively administered prior to the victim's arrival at a hospital or clinic
D. The Food and Drug Administration has already approved agents that are at least as effective as the new drug in dissolving blood clots
E.The new blood clot dissolving agent causes kidney damage and irregular heart rates in some patients.
Please explain the answer. A. The new agent must be administered by a team of doctors in a hospital or clinic setting. -> this is IMO answer since if the drug needs to be given in hospital then again the patients need to reach the hospitals so theres no use of such drugs B. Many heart attack victims die unnecessarily even though they reach a hospital or clinic in time -> irrelevantC. The new agent can be effectively administered prior to the victim's arrival at a hospital or clinic -> this strengthensD. The Food and Drug Administration has already approved agents that are at least as effective as the new drug in dissolving blood clots -> this strengthensE.The new blood clot dissolving agent causes kidney damage and irregular heart rates in some patients. -> this is side effects but here evidence is failure to reach hospitals which is the cause of death How does D strengthen the passage. I get why answer is A, but it was tied with D for me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Verbal GMAT Forum Moderator
Status: Flying over the cloud!
Joined: 17 Aug 2011
Posts: 787
Location: Viet Nam
Concentration: International Business, Finance
GPA: 3.07
Followers: 18
Kudos [?]:
80
[0], given: 35
|
Re: Thousands who suffer heart attacks each year die before [#permalink]
02 Dec 2011, 20:20
Firstly, I do not understand the "new agent" is "drug". I think the key is here. After I understand this meaning, it is easy to me to choose the correct choice A. Thank for all explanation above.
_________________
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 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 10 Jan 2011
Posts: 238
Location: India
GMAT Date: 07-16-2012
GPA: 3.4
WE: Consulting (Consulting)
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
24
[0], given: 20
|
Re: Thousands who suffer heart attacks each year die before [#permalink]
05 Dec 2011, 01:56
fiesta wrote: Thousands who suffer heart attacks each year die before reaching a hospital or clinic where they can benefit from the drugs that dissolve clots in coronary arteries. The Food and Drug Administration recently approved a new blood clot dissolving agent, which a spokesman claimed could save the lives of many people who would otherwise join this group of heart attack victims.
Which of the following, if true, would seriously weaken the argument above?
(A) The new agent must be administered by a team of doctors in a hospital or clinic setting.
(B) Many heart attack victims die unnecessarily even though they reach a hospital or clinic in time
(C) The new agent can be effectively administered prior to the victim's arrival at a hospital or clinic
(D) The Food and Drug Administration has already approved agents that are at least as effective as the new drug in dissolving blood clots
(E) The new blood clot dissolving agent causes kidney damage and irregular heart rates in some patients.
Please explain the answer. people die because they are not able to reach hospital one time - fact. conclusion : new drug can save lots of lives. weakens: if new drug requries people who are suffering from the hart attack needs doctors supervision then people will die in transit and hence can't be saved.
_________________
-------Analyze why option A in SC wrong-------
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 08 Jun 2011
Posts: 74
Schools: NUS
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
3
[0], given: 19
|
Re: Thousands who suffer heart attacks each year die before [#permalink]
06 Dec 2011, 09:13
A it is
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 28 Jul 2011
Posts: 596
Location: United States
Concentration: International Business, General Management
GPA: 3.86
WE: Accounting (Commercial Banking)
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
25
[0], given: 16
|
Re: Thousands who suffer heart attacks each year die before [#permalink]
11 Dec 2011, 22:40
Its A
_________________
+1 Kudos If found helpful..
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 13 Aug 2010
Posts: 318
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
4
[0], given: 1
|
Re: Thousands who suffer heart attacks each year die before [#permalink]
13 Dec 2011, 01:47
straight A
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 07 Aug 2011
Posts: 186
Location: United States
Concentration: Technology, International Business
GMAT 1: 690 Q48 V37
Followers: 3
Kudos [?]:
20
[0], given: 6
|
Re: Thousands who suffer heart attacks each year die before [#permalink]
26 Dec 2011, 12:24
A
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Status: Enjoying the GMAT journey....
Joined: 26 Aug 2011
Posts: 729
Location: India
GMAT 1: 620 Q49 V24
Followers: 45
Kudos [?]:
206
[0], given: 261
|
Re: Thousands who suffer heart attacks each year die before [#permalink]
27 Dec 2011, 10:47
+1 A didn't even read B, C, .......
_________________
Fire the final bullet only when you are constantly hitting the Bull's eye, till then KEEP PRACTICING.
A WAY TO INCREASE FROM QUANT 35-40 TO 47 : a-way-to-increase-from-q35-40-to-q-138750.html
Q 47/48 To Q 50 + the-final-climb-quest-for-q-50-from-q47-129441.html#p1064367
Three good RC strategies three-different-strategies-for-attacking-rc-127287.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 12 Nov 2011
Posts: 55
GMAT Date: 12-15-2011
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 1
|
Re: Thousands who suffer heart attacks each year die before [#permalink]
27 Dec 2011, 19:07
A clearly
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 12 Oct 2011
Posts: 283
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
13
[0], given: 110
|
Re: Thousands who suffer heart attacks each year die before [#permalink]
02 Jan 2012, 22:42
Clearly A. If people die en route to the hospital, then the drug is futile.
_________________
Consider KUDOS if you feel the effort's worth it
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 25 Sep 2010
Posts: 85
Schools: HBS, LBS, Wharton, Kelloggs, Booth
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
1
[0], given: 15
|
Re: Thousands who suffer heart attacks each year die before [#permalink]
26 Jan 2012, 01:57
The new blood clot dissolving agent is advantageous because it will help the patient before he/she reaches the hospital. Any statement that weakens the conclusion would state that new blood clot dissolving agent may not be helpful before the patient reaches the hospital, precisely what A states.
(A) The new agent must be administered by a team of doctors in a hospital or clinic setting.
(B) Many heart attack victims die unnecessarily even though they reach a hospital or clinic in time. Irrelevant. We're not talking about ppl dying unnecessarily.
(C) The new agent can be effectively administered prior to the victim's arrival at a hospital or clinic. This statement actually STRENGTHENS the argument.
(D) The Food and Drug Administration has already approved agents that are at least as effective as the new drug in dissolving blood clots. No such comparison made. Irrelevant.
(E) The new blood clot dissolving agent causes kidney damage and irregular heart rates in some patients. Weakens, but does not address the conclusion. A seems to be the best.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 08 Jul 2008
Posts: 151
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
2
[0], given: 0
|
Re: Thousands who suffer heart attacks each year die before [#permalink]
27 Jan 2012, 17:14
Thanks for the explanation
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Posts: 13
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 6
|
Re: CR: heart attack [#permalink]
02 Dec 2012, 12:22
spriya wrote: fiesta wrote: Thousands who suffer heart attacks each year die before reaching a hospital or clinic where they can benefit from the drugs that dissolve clots in coronary arteries. The Food and Drug Administration recently approved a new blood clot dissolving agent, which a spokesman claimed could save the lives of many people who would otherwise join this group of heart attack victims.
Q: Which of the following, if true, would seriously weaken the argument above?
A. The new agent must be administered by a team of doctors in a hospital or clinic setting.
B. Many heart attack victims die unnecessarily even though they reach a hospital or clinic in time
C. The new agent can be effectively administered prior to the victim's arrival at a hospital or clinic
D. The Food and Drug Administration has already approved agents that are at least as effective as the new drug in dissolving blood clots
E.The new blood clot dissolving agent causes kidney damage and irregular heart rates in some patients.
Please explain the answer. A. The new agent must be administered by a team of doctors in a hospital or clinic setting. -> this is IMO answer since if the drug needs to be given in hospital then again the patients need to reach the hospitals so theres no use of such drugs B. Many heart attack victims die unnecessarily even though they reach a hospital or clinic in time -> irrelevantC. The new agent can be effectively administered prior to the victim's arrival at a hospital or clinic -> this strengthensD. The Food and Drug Administration has already approved agents that are at least as effective as the new drug in dissolving blood clots -> this strengthensE.The new blood clot dissolving agent causes kidney damage and irregular heart rates in some patients. -> this is side effects but here evidence is failure to reach hospitals which is the cause of death Hello my friend!!! Could you please explain why D is incorrect. I don't see how it strenthens it since I am interpreting the D as following: "The Food and Drug Administration has already approved agents, which is also effective" BUT the situation remain the same, meaning people are still dieing before reaching to hospital, even though the effective method has existed before the introduction of agent. I thought D is superior than A. Thank you!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Posts: 13
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 6
|
Re: Thousands who suffer heart attacks each year die before [#permalink]
03 Dec 2012, 16:13
Hi folks!!!
Could you please explain why D is incorrect.
I don't see how it strenthens it since I am interpreting the D as following:
"The Food and Drug Administration has already approved agents, which is also effective" BUT the situation remain the same, meaning people are still dieing before reaching to hospital, even though the effective method has existed before the introduction of agent. I thought D is superior than A.
Thank you!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 13 Aug 2012
Posts: 468
Followers: 12
Kudos [?]:
74
[0], given: 11
|
Re: Thousands who suffer heart attacks each year die before [#permalink]
26 Feb 2013, 04:16
fiesta wrote: Thousands who suffer heart attacks each year die before reaching a hospital or clinic where they can benefit from the drugs that dissolve clots in coronary arteries. The Food and Drug Administration recently approved a new blood clot dissolving agent, which a spokesman claimed could save the lives of many people who would otherwise join this group of heart attack victims.
Which of the following, if true, would seriously weaken the argument above?
(A) The new agent must be administered by a team of doctors in a hospital or clinic setting.
(B) Many heart attack victims die unnecessarily even though they reach a hospital or clinic in time
(C) The new agent can be effectively administered prior to the victim's arrival at a hospital or clinic
(D) The Food and Drug Administration has already approved agents that are at least as effective as the new drug in dissolving blood clots
(E) The new blood clot dissolving agent causes kidney damage and irregular heart rates in some patients.
Please explain the answer. A is correct. Thousands die before reaching hospital. If the agent still needs to be administered in hospitals then, still thousands will die. B. we need something that weakens the claim about the new agent.. This doesn't weaken the argument. C. Strengthens the argument. Incorrect. D. Other drugs doesn't hurt the argument E. if this is true, maybe 1 out of every hours and die because of that.. Still those saved is significant... Answer: A
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 25 Jul 2012
Posts: 55
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 109
|
Re: Thousands who suffer heart attacks each year die before [#permalink]
26 Feb 2013, 17:44
GMATtaker777 wrote: Hi folks!!!
Could you please explain why D is incorrect.
I don't see how it strengthens it since I am interpreting the D as following:
"The Food and Drug Administration has already approved agents, which is also effective" BUT the situation remain the same, meaning people are still dieing before reaching to hospital, even though the effective method has existed before the introduction of agent. I thought D is superior than A.
Thank you! Thousands who suffer heart attacks each year die before reaching a hospital or clinic where they can benefit from the drugs that dissolve clots in coronary arteries. The Food and Drug Administration recently approved a new blood clot dissolving agent, which a spokesman claimed could save the lives of many people who would otherwise join this group of heart attack victims. Which of the following, if true, would seriously weaken the argument above? What does the argument say? It states in the first sentence that people die before they even reach the hospital (THIS IS KEY). So the FDA has recently approved a new medication which will help these thousands of people who are having heart attacks. The conclusion: the spokesmen CLAIMS (conclusion indicator) that this could save the many lives of these people who are having heart attacks.
Now when dealing with CR weakening questions think in your head:
"What would totally destroy the conclusion?"
"What additional info will mess up the though process of the argument?"
"What would backfire on the plan?" (A) The new agent must be administered by a team of doctors in a hospital or clinic setting. correct When first reading this, this looks very attractive to totally destroy the spokesman's conclusion. Think about it, what's the point of the medication if it can only be used in a clinic or a hospital? The first sentence clearly states that people die ON THE WAY to the hospital. So by the time they arrive to hospital, chances are death is upon them. (D) The Food and Drug Administration has already approved agents that are at least as effective as the new drug in dissolving blood clots incorrect This answer looks attractive as your initial thought probably is "yeah this looks good because if there are already drugs that have the same effect, what's the point?" However, you have to take into consideration the premise and conclusion of the argument. The argument is only talking about the new drug, other drugs would be irrelevant.
Remember weakening questions, a lot of the times, try to trap you with irrelevant information that looks attractive and answers that actually strengthen argument
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Thousands who suffer heart attacks each year die before
[#permalink]
26 Feb 2013, 17:44
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
metallicafan, rajeevrks27, souvik101990, PTK, MacFauz, noboru, kissthegmat, carcass, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, doe007, Vercules, Legendaddy, tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Marcab, Narenn
|
close
