Events & Promotions
|
|
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized
for You
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Nov 1912:30 PM EST
-01:30 PM EST
Learn how Keshav, a Chartered Accountant, scored an impressive 705 on GMAT in just 30 days with GMATWhiz's expert guidance. In this video, he shares preparation tips and strategies that worked for him, including the mock, time management, and more
Nov 2007:30 AM PST
-08:30 AM PST
Learn what truly sets the UC Riverside MBA apart and how it helps in your professional growth
Nov 2001:30 PM EST
-02:30 PM IST
Learn how Kamakshi achieved a GMAT 675 with an impressive 96th %ile in Data Insights. Discover the unique methods and exam strategies that helped her excel in DI along with other sections for a balanced and high score.
Nov 2211:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Do RC/MSR passages scare you? e-GMAT is conducting a masterclass to help you learn – Learn effective reading strategies Tackle difficult RC & MSR with confidence Excel in timed test environment- Nov 23
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease. 
Nov 2407:00 PM PST
-08:00 PM PST
Full-length FE mock with insightful analytics, weakness diagnosis, and video explanations!
Nov 2510:00 AM EST
-11:00 AM EST
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors.
04 Feb 2020, 02:59
Kudos
Bookmarks
A
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
75%
(hard)
Question Stats:
53% (02:13) correct
47%
(02:14)
wrong
based on 843
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
A careful review of hospital fatalities due to anesthesia during the last 20 years indicates that the most significant safety improvements resulted from better training of anesthetists. Equipment that monitors a patient’s oxygen and carbon dioxide levels was not available in most operating rooms during the period under review. Therefore, the increased use of such monitoring equipment in operating rooms will not significantly cut fatalities due to anesthesia.
A flaw in the argument is that
(A) the evidence cited to show that one factor led to a certain result is not sufficient to show that a second factor will not also lead to that result
(B) the reasons given in support of the conclusion presuppose the truth of that conclusion
(C) the evidence cited to show that a certain factor was absent when a certain result occurred does not show that the absence of that factor caused that result
(D) the evidence cited in support of the conclusion is inconsistent with other information that is provided
(E) the reason indicated for the claim that one event caused a second more strongly supports the claim that both events were independent effects of a third event
A flaw in the argument is that
(A) the evidence cited to show that one factor led to a certain result is not sufficient to show that a second factor will not also lead to that result
(B) the reasons given in support of the conclusion presuppose the truth of that conclusion
(C) the evidence cited to show that a certain factor was absent when a certain result occurred does not show that the absence of that factor caused that result
(D) the evidence cited in support of the conclusion is inconsistent with other information that is provided
(E) the reason indicated for the claim that one event caused a second more strongly supports the claim that both events were independent effects of a third event
06 Feb 2020, 02:59
Kudos
Bookmarks
Okay, so this is a flaw question. The hardest part about this question is not the stimulus, but rather, the abstract wording of the answer choices. When you come to a question with answer choices that have abstract wording, its best to move from wrong to right. Lets jump straight to the answer choices.
(B) is incorrect because the argument does not contain circular reasoning, or, as the answer choice states, the reasons given in support of the conclusion do not presuppose the truth of that conclusion. If you're having trouble understanding what "presupposing what the argument sets out to prove", means, click here for more information.
(C) is incorrect, and highly tempting (stupid abstract wording), because what its basically trying to say is that the evidence cited to show that a certain factor (not having equipment to monitor the patients O2 and Co2 levels) was absent when a certain result occurred (less people dying) does not show that the absence of that factor (not having the equipment) caused that result (less people dying).
In other words, not having the equipment does not show that less people dying occurred because of the absence of that equipment is what caused less people to die.
(Did you see how dumb that sounded?)
(D) is incorrect because the evidence is not inconsitent with any other information in the stimulus. The evidence (better training and equipment) is actually consistent. It would be easy to spot if it weren't, sort of like a paradox question.
(E) is incorrect because we don't have a third event so we don't even know what the heck this answer choice is talking about.
Lastly, (A) is the winner and your correct answer choice because the argument basically tries to say that having the equipment will not lead to significant cut in the fatalities simply because they already had a significant cut in fatalities when they had better training. You're probably asking yourself, "well wait, what if the new equipment, coupled with the better training leads to MORE lives being saved". And this, folks, is exactly what you should have asked yourself during this question. Answer choice (A) perfectly hits this point, in a more abstract sort of way.
(B) is incorrect because the argument does not contain circular reasoning, or, as the answer choice states, the reasons given in support of the conclusion do not presuppose the truth of that conclusion. If you're having trouble understanding what "presupposing what the argument sets out to prove", means, click here for more information.
(C) is incorrect, and highly tempting (stupid abstract wording), because what its basically trying to say is that the evidence cited to show that a certain factor (not having equipment to monitor the patients O2 and Co2 levels) was absent when a certain result occurred (less people dying) does not show that the absence of that factor (not having the equipment) caused that result (less people dying).
In other words, not having the equipment does not show that less people dying occurred because of the absence of that equipment is what caused less people to die.
(Did you see how dumb that sounded?)
(D) is incorrect because the evidence is not inconsitent with any other information in the stimulus. The evidence (better training and equipment) is actually consistent. It would be easy to spot if it weren't, sort of like a paradox question.
(E) is incorrect because we don't have a third event so we don't even know what the heck this answer choice is talking about.
Lastly, (A) is the winner and your correct answer choice because the argument basically tries to say that having the equipment will not lead to significant cut in the fatalities simply because they already had a significant cut in fatalities when they had better training. You're probably asking yourself, "well wait, what if the new equipment, coupled with the better training leads to MORE lives being saved". And this, folks, is exactly what you should have asked yourself during this question. Answer choice (A) perfectly hits this point, in a more abstract sort of way.
03 Apr 2021, 04:00
Kudos
Bookmarks
Bunuel
OFFICIAL EXPLANATION
(A) Yes. That better training of anesthetists improved safety in no way implies that new equipment would not have a similar result. The argument cannot validly make a conclusion about equipment that was not studied.
(B) No. The argument is not circular. In fact, the argument is flawed because it takes too big of a leap in logic.
(C) No. The passage does not argue that the absence of a certain factor (monitoring devices) caused a certain result (increase in safety). Rather, it states that the presence of better-trained anesthetists resulted in a better safety record. The argument then invalidly concludes that the presence of the monitoring devices
would not also improve the safety record.
(D) No. Only one piece of evidence is cited—a review of hospital fatalities due to anesthesia during the last 20 years. No evidence is cited to support the conclusion regarding the use of monitoring equipment.
(E) No. The argument states that one event (better training of anesthetists) resulted in another event (an improved safety record in hospital anesthesia use).
Nothing in the passage suggests that both of these results were independently caused by a third event.
