GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

It is currently 15 Dec 2018, 08:08

Close

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

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel
Events & Promotions in December
PrevNext
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
2526272829301
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
303112345
Open Detailed Calendar
  • $450 Tuition Credit & Official CAT Packs FREE

     December 15, 2018

     December 15, 2018

     10:00 PM PST

     11:00 PM PST

    Get the complete Official GMAT Exam Pack collection worth $100 with the 3 Month Pack ($299)
  • FREE Quant Workshop by e-GMAT!

     December 16, 2018

     December 16, 2018

     07:00 AM PST

     09:00 AM PST

    Get personalized insights on how to achieve your Target Quant Score.

A law is being proposed that would require the installation

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Intern
Intern
User avatar
Joined: 08 May 2012
Posts: 12
Location: India
A law is being proposed that would require the installation  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 17 Sep 2012, 04:35
5
7
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  55% (hard)

Question Stats:

60% (01:24) correct 40% (01:35) wrong based on 539 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

A law is being proposed that would require the installation of defibrillators, which are used to treat heart attacks, in new restaurants. However, a leading local restaurant owner opposes the law, saying that the vast majority of preventable heart attack deaths can be prevented by the timely employment of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR).

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the restaurant owner's argument?

A. Most individuals have no formal training in cardiopulmonary resuscitation.
B. Since new restaurants are but a small fraction of all restaurants in the area, the new law would be extremely narrow in scope.
C. The installation of defibrillators in new restaurants costs significantly less than the installation of fire suppression equipment.
D.In the area that the proposed law would cover, the average time required for emergency personnel to respond to medical emergencies was far less than that of the whole country.
E. The largest proportion of heart attack deaths result from situations in which no cardiopulmonary resuscitation-trained individuals are present.
Most Helpful Community Reply
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 01 Dec 2012
Posts: 33
Concentration: Finance, Operations
GPA: 2.9
Reviews Badge
A law is being proposed that would require the installation  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 10 Jan 2013, 21:42
1
5
A law is being proposed that would require the installation of defibrillators, which are used to treat heart attacks, in new restaurants. However, a leading local restauranteur opposes the law, saying that the vast majority of preventable heart attack deaths can be prevented by the timely employment of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR).
Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the restauranteur's argument?

Most individuals have no formal training in cardiopulmonary resuscitation.
Since new restaurants are but a small fraction of all restaurants in the area, the new law would be extremely narrow in scope.
The installation of defibrillators in new restaurants costs significantly less than the installation of fire suppression equipment.
In the area that the proposed law would cover, the average time required for emergency personnel to respond to medical emergencies was far less than that of the whole country.
The largest proportion of heart attack deaths result from situations in which no cardiopulmonary resuscitation-trained individuals are present.

I am struggling between A & E rest are OFS
Please differentiate the both options effectively , so that it could easily understood .

Thanks in advance

MOKSH
KUDO , if u like or it helps u !
General Discussion
Intern
Intern
avatar
Status: Working on GMAT
Affiliations: Purdue University - EE; RF Design - Telecommunication
Joined: 02 Sep 2012
Posts: 6
Location: United States
Concentration: Strategy, General Management
GPA: 3.16
WE: Design (Telecommunications)
Re: installation of defibrillators  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 17 Sep 2012, 19:18
A law is being proposed that would require the installation of defibrillators, which are used to treat heart attacks, in new restaurants. However, a leading local restaurant owner opposes the law, saying that the vast majority of preventable heart attack deaths can be prevented by the timely employment of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR).

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the restaurant owner's argument?

A. Most individuals have no formal training in cardiopulmonary resuscitation.
B. Since new restaurants are but a small fraction of all restaurants in the area, the new law would be extremely narrow in scope.
C. The installation of defibrillators in new restaurants costs significantly less than the installation of fire suppression equipment.
D.In the area that the proposed law would cover, the average time required for emergency personnel to respond to medical emergencies was far less than that of the whole country.
E. The largest proportion of heart attack deaths result from situations in which no cardiopulmonary resuscitation-trained individuals are present.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Argument: the vast majority of preventable heart attack deaths can be prevented by the timely employment of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR)

A weakens the argument
B Irrelevant
C Irrelevant, Installing fire suppression, hopefully, has nothing to do with CPR :-D
D Irrelevant
E weakens the argument

Have to decide between A & E. Question asks "Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the restaurant owner's argument?"
- IMO E is the right answer because it refers to heart attack deaths, which has serious impact, as opposed to A, which only says most have no training.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Affiliations: SAE
Joined: 11 Jul 2012
Posts: 454
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Social Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V37
GPA: 3.5
WE: Project Management (Energy and Utilities)
Re: installation of defibrillators  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post Updated on: 18 Sep 2012, 05:36
+1A

Premise - A law is being proposed that would require the installation of defibrillators, which are used to treat heart attacks, in new restaurants.

Conclusion - However, a leading local restaurant owner opposes the law, saying that the vast majority of preventable heart attack deaths can be prevented by the timely employment of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR).

Anything which weakens the conclusion is our answer i.e anything which proves that vast majority of preventable heart attack deaths can NOT be prevented by the timely employment of CPR is our answer

A. Most individuals have no formal training in cardiopulmonary resuscitation. (Good option, if people do not know about CPR the conclusion becomes weak, let us keep this option for some time)
B. Since new restaurants are but a small fraction of all restaurants in the area, the new law would be extremely narrow in scope. (Irrelevant)
C. The installation of defibrillators in new restaurants costs significantly less than the installation of fire suppression equipment. (Fire suppression?? Out of Scope)
D. In the area that the proposed law would cover, the average time required for emergency personnel to respond to medical emergencies was far less than that of the whole country. (It is not related to CPR and does not solve our purpose)
E. The largest proportion of heart attack deaths result from situations in which no cardiopulmonary resuscitation-trained individuals are present. (It strengthen the conclusion i.e it might have been possible to avoid a few deaths if CPR trained individuals would have been present)

The only option we are left with is option A which should be our answer.


Why is the OA E? What am I doing worng here? :|
_________________

First Attempt 710 - http://gmatclub.com/forum/first-attempt-141273.html


Originally posted by getgyan on 17 Sep 2012, 22:01.
Last edited by getgyan on 18 Sep 2012, 05:36, edited 1 time in total.
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Status: Prevent and prepare. Not repent and repair!!
Joined: 13 Feb 2010
Posts: 196
Location: India
Concentration: Technology, General Management
GPA: 3.75
WE: Sales (Telecommunications)
Re: installation of defibrillators  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 Sep 2012, 00:32
1
getgyan wrote:
+1A

Premise - A law is being proposed that would require the installation of defibrillators, which are used to treat heart attacks, in new restaurants.

Conclusion - However, a leading local restaurant owner opposes the law, saying that the vast majority of preventable heart attack deaths can be prevented by the timely employment of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR).

Anything which weakens the conclusion is our answer i.e anything which proves that vast majority of preventable heart attack deaths can NOT be prevented by the timely employment of CPR is our answer

A. Most individuals have no formal training in cardiopulmonary resuscitation. (Good option, if people does not know about CPR the conclusion becomes weak, let us keep this option for some time)
B. Since new restaurants are but a small fraction of all restaurants in the area, the new law would be extremely narrow in scope. (Irrelevant)
C. The installation of defibrillators in new restaurants costs significantly less than the installation of fire suppression equipment. (Fire suppression?? Out of Scope)
D. In the area that the proposed law would cover, the average time required for emergency personnel to respond to medical emergencies was far less than that of the whole country. (It is not related to CPR and does not solve our purpose)
E. The largest proportion of heart attack deaths result from situations in which no cardiopulmonary resuscitation-trained individuals are present. (It strengthen the conclusion i.e it might have been possible to avoid a few deaths if CPR trained individuals would have been present)

The only option we are left with is option A which should be our answer.


Why is the OA E? What am I doing worng here? :|



The ans is E.

You eliminate BCD as they are out of scope.

Now between A and E- A talks about being trained in CPR which is not of relevance here. We are talking about deaths due to heart attacks.

If you look at E it says people are dying in which no CPR trained guys are present. That means its better to install the Defibrillators. This will weaken the restaurant owner's stand and this is what we want.

Hope this is clear.
_________________

I've failed over and over and over again in my life and that is why I succeed--Michael Jordan
Kudos drives a person to better himself every single time. So Pls give it generously
Wont give up till i hit a 700+

Retired Moderator
User avatar
D
Status: worked for Kaplan's associates, but now on my own, free and flying
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 4561
Location: India
WE: Education (Education)
Re: installation of defibrillators  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 Sep 2012, 04:54
3
1
A law is being proposed that would require the installation of defibrillators, which are used to treat heart attacks, in new restaurants. However, a leading local restaurateur opposes the law, saying that the vast majority of preventable heart attack deaths can be prevented by the timely employment of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR).

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the restaurateur’s argument?

Almost individuals have no formal training in cardiopulmonary resuscitation.
B.Since new restaurants are but a small fraction of all restaurants in the area, the new law would be extremely narrow in scope.
C.The installation of defibrillators in new restaurants costs significantly less than the installation of fire suppression equipment.
D.In the area that the proposed law would cover, the average time required for emergency personnel to respond to medical emergencies was far less than that of the whole country.
E.The largest proportion of heart attack deaths result from situations in which no cardiopulmonary resuscitation-trained individuals are present


While dumping BCD as irrelevant, and limiting the discussion to between A and E, I would rather lean more E than on A.

The hotelier says that CPR is enough and hence he opposes the law.

In order to weaken his stand, we need to say that CPR may be good but still it is not guaranteed that we can be confident about CPR, since CPR trained people aren’t going to be handily available.

A claims that most individuals have no formal training in CPR, hence CPR may not be enough. But it may not weaken the hoteliers’ stand; The word most still leaves a gap and a few that are left out of A’s ambit might still be available in and around the hotel. So insufficient training can only take us half across the well. On the contrary E point blank avers that if the trained person is not going to be available instantly, then death is sure to occur. This directly enhances the need to comply with the law and hence the Hotelier’s reasoning that we do not need the gadgets can be dislodged.

The point that you may be missing is that, the assumption that only CPR can save patients from death in heart attacks. CPR is only one of the methods that can save. Between the error- prone human being and a gadget, the gadget is more reliable.
_________________

you can know a lot about something and not really understand it."-- a quote
No one knows this better than a GMAT student does.
Narendran +9198845 44509

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 03 May 2013
Posts: 291
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Human Resources
Schools: XLRI GM"18
GPA: 4
WE: Human Resources (Human Resources)
Re: A law is being proposed that would require the installation  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Dec 2013, 00:20
A law is being proposed that would require the installation of defibrillators, which are used to treat heart attacks, in new restaurants. However, a leading local restaurateur opposes the law, saying that the vast majority of preventable heart attack deaths can be prevented by the timely employment of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR).

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the restaurateur’s argument?

Both A and E are prospective answers......
A. says "most individuals have no formal training in cardiopulmonary resuscitation". Most people may not be needed, just one will do. No formal training required... basic training will do......

E. says "The largest proportion of heart attack deaths result from situations in which no cardiopulmonary resuscitation-trained individuals are present". So, if a cardiopulmonary resuscitation-trained individual is not present, which is possible, likely hood of death is high..... Hence restaurateur's argument weakens.....
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 03 May 2013
Posts: 291
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Human Resources
Schools: XLRI GM"18
GPA: 4
WE: Human Resources (Human Resources)
Re: A law is being proposed that would require the installation  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 Dec 2013, 13:29
A law is being proposed that would require the installation of defibrillators, which are used to treat heart attacks, in new restaurants. However, a leading local restaurant owner opposes the law, saying that the vast majority of preventable heart attack deaths can be prevented by the timely employment of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR).

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the restaurant owner's argument?

A. Most individuals have no formal training in cardiopulmonary resuscitation. most people dont need to know... even one will do... wrong
B. Since new restaurants are but a small fraction of all restaurants in the area, the new law would be extremely narrow in scope. irrelevant..
C. The installation of defibrillators in new restaurants costs significantly less than the installation of fire suppression equipment. cost irrelevant
D.In the area that the proposed law would cover, the average time required for emergency personnel to respond to medical emergencies was far less than that of the whole country. relative responce time irrelevant
E. The largest proportion of heart attack deaths result from situations in which no cardiopulmonary resuscitation-trained individuals are present. correct.... in such a scenario if DEFIBRILLATOR WAS AVAILABLE the life could be saved..
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Posts: 61
A law is being proposed that would require the installation  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 12 Oct 2015, 10:21
MOKSH wrote:
A law is being proposed that would require the installation of defibrillators, which are used to treat heart attacks, in new restaurants. However, a leading local restauranteur opposes the law, saying that the vast majority of preventable heart attack deaths can be prevented by the timely employment of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR).
Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the restauranteur's argument?

Most individuals have no formal training in cardiopulmonary resuscitation.
Since new restaurants are but a small fraction of all restaurants in the area, the new law would be extremely narrow in scope.
The installation of defibrillators in new restaurants costs significantly less than the installation of fire suppression equipment.
In the area that the proposed law would cover, the average time required for emergency personnel to respond to medical emergencies was far less than that of the whole country.
The largest proportion of heart attack deaths result from situations in which no cardiopulmonary resuscitation-trained individuals are present.

I am struggling between A & E rest are OFS
Please differentiate the both options effectively , so that it could easily understood .

Thanks in advance

MOKSH
KUDO , if u like or it helps u !



My take is Option E. I took a simple approach.
Question Stem:
A law requires installation of defibrillators. However, a leading restaurant owner oppose the law and states that timely employment of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) will prevent the heart attack.

Option B, C, and D are straight away out. Let me know if you need me to explain those options.

Option A: Most individuals have no formal training in cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Okay, but what if that even though the individuals had no formal training but they can still operate the CPR (by reading user manual). Formal training is not a prerequisite to use the CPR. The option leaves that possibility.

Option E: "The largest proportion of heart attack deaths result from situations in which no cardiopulmonary resuscitation-trained individuals are present". Hmm interesting. Okay, restaurant owner (who oppose the law), you have the CPR. But what if the heart attacks are actually caused by the CPR since during the emergency situation no CPR trained individuals are present.
E is the correct answer.

Thanks,
Chanakya

Hit kudos if you like the explanation!
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 06 Mar 2018
Posts: 1
A law is being proposed that would require the installation  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 25 Sep 2018, 02:06
sajini wrote:
A law is being proposed that would require the installation of defibrillators, which are used to treat heart attacks, in new restaurants. However, a leading local restaurant owner opposes the law, saying that the vast majority of preventable heart attack deaths can be prevented by the timely employment of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR).

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the restaurant owner's argument?

A. Most individuals have no formal training in cardiopulmonary resuscitation.
B. Since new restaurants are but a small fraction of all restaurants in the area, the new law would be extremely narrow in scope.
C. The installation of defibrillators in new restaurants costs significantly less than the installation of fire suppression equipment.
D.In the area that the proposed law would cover, the average time required for emergency personnel to respond to medical emergencies was far less than that of the whole country.
E. The largest proportion of heart attack deaths result from situations in which no cardiopulmonary resuscitation-trained individuals are present.



I have narrowed it down to A and E. IMO,
A is not the correct answer because we don't require most individuals to have formal training in CPR. Even if a few are there, they can provide CPR services to the needy. We don't require say like 50% of the population to know CPR procedures.

E is correct because if CPR trained individuals are not there where majority of heart attacks ocur, then this will definitely weaken the argument.
Intern
Intern
User avatar
B
Joined: 23 Dec 2011
Posts: 34
Re: A law is being proposed that would require the installation  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 25 Sep 2018, 07:42
Took more than 2 minutes to answer this question. I was struggling between A and E. Selected E just because it is considering both - deaths from heart attack and availability of someone who can perform the CPR.
GMAT Club Bot
Re: A law is being proposed that would require the installation &nbs [#permalink] 25 Sep 2018, 07:42
Display posts from previous: Sort by

A law is being proposed that would require the installation

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


Copyright

GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.