|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 15 Jul 2008
Posts: 55
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
4
[2] , given: 2
|
Thousands who suffer heart attacks each year die before [#permalink]
 14 Aug 2008, 08:52
2
This post received
KUDOS
Question Stats:
65% (01:50) correct
34% (01:43) wrong based on 7 sessions
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 30 Nov 2010
Posts: 267
Schools: UC Berkley, UCLA
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
48
[2] , given: 66
|
Re: CR: heart attack [#permalink]
09 Dec 2010, 08:53
2
This post received
KUDOS
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 the answer. Premise: People who have heart attacks must go to a clinic or a hospital. Premise 2: On their way to the hospital they die without receiving the proper medical attention that they need. Premise 3: A new blood dissolving agent is approved. Conclusion: This new agent can save the life of heart attack victims. A: If the new agent must be taking with the administration of a doctor in a hospital, it defeats the whole purpose of the drug being made. (B/c heart attack victims die on their way to a hospital) B: Irrelevant. C: Supports argument D: Does not weaken the argument E: Does not help with attacking the conclusion of the argument.
_________________
Thank you for your kudoses Everyone!!!
"It always seems impossible until its done."
-Nelson Mandela
|
|
|
|
|
|
Retired Moderator
Joined: 18 Jul 2008
Posts: 1003
Followers: 7
Kudos [?]:
40
[0], given: 5
|
Re: CR: heart attack [#permalink]
14 Aug 2008, 08:54
a)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 15 Jul 2008
Posts: 55
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
4
[0], given: 2
|
Re: CR: heart attack [#permalink]
14 Aug 2008, 09:01
Why A? I can't understand
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 25 May 2008
Posts: 196
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
6
[0], given: 0
|
Re: CR: heart attack [#permalink]
14 Aug 2008, 09:08
I think is A. The author says that "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". So, if "The new agent must be administered by a team of doctors in a hospital or clinic setting", the situation remains the same and what spokesman says is not true. What is the OA?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 15 Jul 2008
Posts: 55
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
4
[0], given: 2
|
Re: CR: heart attack [#permalink]
14 Aug 2008, 09:12
Thank vbalex. OA is A
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 25 May 2008
Posts: 196
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
6
[0], given: 0
|
Re: CR: heart attack [#permalink]
14 Aug 2008, 09:15
Let me explain: people die because they must go to a hospital to have medication. They need a drug which could be administred at home, not at hospital, without doctors . If we take A, we will see that even for the new drug they will need to go at hospital, so the situation remains the same.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 30 Jun 2007
Posts: 793
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
82
[0], given: 0
|
Re: CR: heart attack [#permalink]
14 Aug 2008, 16:44
Conclusion: 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.
Assumption: The drug can be taken by the patients before or during onset of the heart attack.
The weaken conclusion either invalid the assumption or introduce the additional extra information that overall weaken the argument.
Tie is between: A and D
Since A weakens the central pillar (assumption) of the arguments, hence wins.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 28 Aug 2006
Posts: 146
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
5
[0], given: 0
|
Re: CR: heart attack [#permalink]
15 Aug 2008, 15:58
vbalex wrote: Let me explain: people die because they must go to a hospital to have medication. They need a drug which could be administred at home, not at hospital, without doctors . If we take A, we will see that even for the new drug they will need to go at hospital, so the situation remains the same. Well said.... Ans - A
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 15 Jul 2008
Posts: 55
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
4
[0], given: 2
|
Re: CR: heart attack [#permalink]
15 Aug 2008, 21:12
Thank you so much 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 31 Jul 2006
Posts: 243
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
12
[0], given: 0
|
Re: CR: heart attack [#permalink]
17 Aug 2008, 22:53
A
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 06 Apr 2008
Posts: 452
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
25
[0], given: 1
|
Re: CR: heart attack [#permalink]
18 Aug 2008, 05:10
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. IMO A). The main concern is that patients die before reaching hospital. Now if there is new drug which must be administered by team of doctors then it will not help in improving the concern.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 25 Nov 2006
Posts: 276
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
16
[0], given: 0
|
Re: CR: heart attack [#permalink]
18 Aug 2008, 06:24
IMO A.
It reinstates the fact that the patient should be in a Hospital atmosphere....but the argument states that most patients die before they reach the hospital. Thus this drug would be ineffective cause by the time the doctors administer it, the patient would already have been dead.
|
|
|
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 17 Jun 2008
Posts: 1411
Followers: 6
Kudos [?]:
73
[0], given: 0
|
Re: CR: heart attack [#permalink]
18 Aug 2008, 06:42
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
_________________
cheers
Its Now Or Never
|
|
|
|
|
|
Verbal GMAT Forum Moderator
Joined: 31 Jan 2010
Posts: 500
WE 1: 4 years Tech
Followers: 7
Kudos [?]:
67
[0], given: 149
|
Re: CR: heart attack [#permalink]
26 Nov 2010, 06:12
A is the answer because it brings under consideration the possibility that if the new drug will only available at clinical setup, patients who r not able to to reach the setup on time will unable to enjoy the benefits of the drug
_________________
My Post Invites Discussions not answers
Try to give back something to the Forum.I want your explanations, right now !
Please let me know your opinion about the Chandigarh Gmat Centrehttp://gmatclub.com/forum/gmat-experience-at-chandigarh-india-centre-111830.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 23 Oct 2010
Posts: 93
Location: India
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
15
[0], given: 6
|
Re: CR: heart attack [#permalink]
26 Nov 2010, 06:15
A.
if a new agent is released, though it might be effective, but it still needs to be administered in a clinic by doctors. Hence the premise of the above argument is still valid that states that most of the heart patients die because they are not able to recieve medication in time to remove blood clots. Time to deliver is being questioned here in the premise and not the quality of drug.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Status: I rest, I rust.
Joined: 04 Oct 2010
Posts: 128
Schools: ISB - Co 2013
WE 1: IT Professional since 2006
Followers: 13
Kudos [?]:
84
[0], given: 8
|
Re: CR: heart attack [#permalink]
26 Nov 2010, 06:31
I just started reading PowerScore CR Bible. Lets see if it has helped me any. 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 [Premise]. 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 [Conclusion].
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.
This sounds like a winner since it says that "patients would still have to brought to the hospital before the drug could be administered", but its the transit itself during which most patients die. But lets assess other options too.
(B) Many heart attack victims die unnecessarily even though they reach a hospital or clinic in time.
This actually strenghtens the argument; since it says that "not reaching hospital in time" is not the problem, but "lack of a good remedy" is. Stimulus tells us that such a remedy has just been develped. Rejected
(C) The new agent can be effectively administered prior to the victim's arrival at a hospital or clinic.
This also strenghtens the argument; since it says that "patients can be saved to a large extent even before they reach the hospital". Rejected
(D) The Food and Drug Administration has already approved agents that are at least as effective as the new drug in dissolving blood clots.
This neither weakens nor strengthens the argument, since the agent may not have any effect at all. Rejected
(E) The new blood clot dissolving agent causes kidney damage and irregular heart rates in some patients.
This comes dangerously close to weakening the argument but actually does not, since there may exist a cure for damaged kidney and irregular heart rates, or they may even not be life threatening. Rejected
Only A remains
_________________
Respect,
Vaibhav
PS: Correct me if I am wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 01 Nov 2010
Posts: 205
Location: India
Concentration: Technology, Marketing
GMAT Date: 08-27-2012
GPA: 3.8
WE: Marketing (Manufacturing)
Followers: 5
Kudos [?]:
10
[0], given: 26
|
Re: CR: heart attack [#permalink]
27 Nov 2010, 00:59
The only ans is A.
_________________
kudos me if you like my post.
Attitude determine everything.
all the best and God bless you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Status: Trying to get into the illustrious 700 club!
Joined: 18 Oct 2010
Posts: 83
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
15
[0], given: 58
|
Re: CR: heart attack [#permalink]
30 Nov 2010, 12:45
The assumption is that the drug will save lives because it can be taken anywhere instead of relying on the drugs at the hospital (most people die in route to the hospital) (A) The new agent must be administered by a team of doctors in a hospital or clinic setting. If the drug has to be administered by a team of doctors in a hospital than there really are no advantages to the drug. Patients might die on the way to the hospital just the same as before.
_________________
I'm trying to not just answer the problem but to explain how I came up with my answer. If I am incorrect or you have a better method please PM me your thoughts. Thanks!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Posts: 159
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
9
[0], given: 37
|
Re: CR: heart attack [#permalink]
07 Dec 2010, 15:52
The first sentence says that ppl die before reaching hospital when they suffer from heart attack... A directly is related to that claim and weakens the conclusion. IMO A
_________________
Thanks,
VP
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: CR: heart attack
[#permalink]
07 Dec 2010, 15:52
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
metallicafan, rajeevrks27, souvik101990, PTK, MacFauz, noboru, kissthegmat, carcass, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, doe007, Vercules, Legendaddy, tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Marcab, Narenn
|
close
