It is currently 20 Sep 2017, 13:26

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

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

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

3 KUDOS received
Intern
Intern
User avatar
Joined: 08 May 2012
Posts: 14

Kudos [?]: 34 [3], given: 9

Location: India
A law is being proposed that would require the installation [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 17 Sep 2012, 05:35
3
This post received
KUDOS
2
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  55% (hard)

Question Stats:

57% (01:21) correct 43% (01:31) wrong based on 380 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.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

Kudos [?]: 34 [3], given: 9

Intern
Intern
avatar
Status: Working on GMAT
Affiliations: Purdue University - EE; RF Design - Telecommunication
Joined: 02 Sep 2012
Posts: 6

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 0

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, 20:18
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.

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 0

Director
Director
User avatar
Affiliations: SAE
Joined: 11 Jul 2012
Posts: 519

Kudos [?]: 330 [0], given: 269

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 17 Sep 2012, 23:01
+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


Last edited by getgyan on 18 Sep 2012, 06:36, edited 1 time in total.

Kudos [?]: 330 [0], given: 269

1 KUDOS received
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Status: Prevent and prepare. Not repent and repair!!
Joined: 13 Feb 2010
Posts: 256

Kudos [?]: 113 [1], given: 282

Location: India
Concentration: Technology, General Management
GPA: 3.75
WE: Sales (Telecommunications)
Re: installation of defibrillators [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 Sep 2012, 01:32
1
This post received
KUDOS
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+

Kudos [?]: 113 [1], given: 282

Director
Director
User avatar
Affiliations: SAE
Joined: 11 Jul 2012
Posts: 519

Kudos [?]: 330 [0], given: 269

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 18 Sep 2012, 03:11
rajathpanta wrote:
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.


Why is A not relevant here? Let’s see

The last sentence says a vast majority of preventable heart attack deaths can be prevented by the timely employment of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). What will weaken this? Yes, a vast number of heart cases can be treated by CPR ONLY if the people around the patient knows how to perform a proper CPR. But option A states that most individuals have no formal training in cardiopulmonary resuscitation, thus weakening the conclusion.

Is not it?
:?
_________________

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

Kudos [?]: 330 [0], given: 269

2 KUDOS received
Retired Moderator
User avatar
P
Status: worked for Kaplan's associates, but now on my own, free and flying
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 4272

Kudos [?]: 7587 [2], given: 360

Location: India
WE: Education (Education)
Re: installation of defibrillators [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 Sep 2012, 05:54
2
This post received
KUDOS
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
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.
_________________

“Better than a thousand days of diligent study is one day with a great teacher” – a Japanese proverb.
9884544509

Kudos [?]: 7587 [2], given: 360

Director
Director
User avatar
Affiliations: SAE
Joined: 11 Jul 2012
Posts: 519

Kudos [?]: 330 [0], given: 269

Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Social Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V37
GPA: 3.5
WE: Project Management (Energy and Utilities)
Re: A law is being proposed that would require the installation [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 Sep 2012, 04:34
Thanks Daagh

Now I understand. The hotelier says that “timely employment of CPR is enough” but option E states that there were no CPR trained professional around in most of heart attack deaths i.e. they were somewhere far and could not be available in time, thus weakening the conclusion.

I hope I am correct.
:-D
_________________

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

Kudos [?]: 330 [0], given: 269

VP
VP
avatar
Status: Final Lap Up!!!
Affiliations: NYK Line
Joined: 21 Sep 2012
Posts: 1085

Kudos [?]: 638 [0], given: 70

Location: India
GMAT 1: 410 Q35 V11
GMAT 2: 530 Q44 V20
GMAT 3: 630 Q45 V31
GPA: 3.84
WE: Engineering (Transportation)
Re: installation of defibrillators [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 25 Oct 2012, 02:08
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 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? :|


Hi
i dont knw whether you hav gone thru a question wherein new law requires sprinklers to be installed in homes, the answer maximum big fire occured when inmates are not at home.
the question is of same pattern..... i am searching for question...i guess it was an og or mgmat question...once i get ill post the question.
bt the question type is same

Kudos [?]: 638 [0], given: 70

1 KUDOS received
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 01 Dec 2012
Posts: 36

Kudos [?]: 54 [1], given: 8

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, 22:42
1
This post received
KUDOS
5
This post was
BOOKMARKED
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 !

Kudos [?]: 54 [1], given: 8

Moderator
Moderator
User avatar
G
Joined: 01 Sep 2010
Posts: 3346

Kudos [?]: 8728 [0], given: 1138

Re: A law is being proposed that would require the installation [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 11 Jan 2013, 05:04
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 !


We weak the argument only if we find something that says CPR is unuseful

A says about the tranining but says nothing about the scenario to take in account. The training in CPR doesn't help us to weaken the argument at all

E instead says that CPR is not useful so we have the second scenario. So is sufficient to weaken the argument
_________________

COLLECTION OF QUESTIONS AND RESOURCES
Quant: 1. ALL GMATPrep questions Quant/Verbal 2. Bunuel Signature Collection - The Next Generation 3. Bunuel Signature Collection ALL-IN-ONE WITH SOLUTIONS 4. Veritas Prep Blog PDF Version 5. MGMAT Study Hall Thursdays with Ron Quant Videos
Verbal:1. Verbal question bank and directories by Carcass 2. MGMAT Study Hall Thursdays with Ron Verbal Videos 3. Critical Reasoning_Oldy but goldy question banks 4. Sentence Correction_Oldy but goldy question banks 5. Reading-comprehension_Oldy but goldy question banks

Kudos [?]: 8728 [0], given: 1138

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 09 Apr 2013
Posts: 148

Kudos [?]: 119 [0], given: 24

Location: India
WE: Supply Chain Management (Consulting)
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: A law is being proposed that would require the installation [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Nov 2013, 10:43
E is the best choice.

Conclusion: Majority of heart attacks can be prevented by employing CPR.

In order to weaken this conclusion given in the stimulus, find an answer choice that highlights the ineffectiveness of employing CPR to reduce heart attack deaths.


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 ofcardiopulmonary 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.Having no formal training will not hurt the conclusion. What if all the individuals be trained in some or other way?
Since new restaurants are but a small fraction of all restaurants in the area, the new law would be extremely narrow in scope. New restaurants being only a fraction of all restaurants in the area would not limit the effectiveness of the restauranteur's plan. What if most of the customers in the area visit those new restaurants?
The installation of defibrillators in new restaurants costs significantly less than the installation of fire suppression equipment.Cost is not mentioned as a factor affecting the plan in the stimulus. Irrelevant.
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.This choice strengthens the conclusion as less time to respond helps timely employment of CPR.
The largest proportion of heart attack deaths result from situations in which no cardiopulmonary resuscitation-trained individuals are present.If more heart attacks occur in situations where CPR trained personnel are not available, then the proposed plan would not have its intended effect. This choice best weakens the conclusion.

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 !

_________________

+1 KUDOS is the best way to say thanks :-)

"Pay attention to every detail"

Kudos [?]: 119 [0], given: 24

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 23 Apr 2012
Posts: 55

Kudos [?]: 21 [0], given: 2

GMAT 1: 690 Q49 V34
Re: A law is being proposed that would require the installation [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Nov 2013, 07:13
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.

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 .



+1 E.

A: Most individuals have no formal training in cardiopulmonary resuscitation.
The argument doesnt mention anything about individuals requiring "formal" training . What if informal training were enough? Nobody knows !
May be even without any"formal" training individuals can perform CPR and save patients.

E. The largest proportion of heart attack deaths result from situations in which no cardiopulmonary resuscitation-trained individuals are present.
If this is true, then the CPR training would be rendered useless. Let's say the govt did train 99% of the people in CPR. But what would be the point if none of those is present? Training would be in vain.

Hope this makes sense.

Kudos [?]: 21 [0], given: 2

GMAT Club Legend
GMAT Club Legend
User avatar
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10167

Kudos [?]: 253 [0], given: 0

Premium Member
Re: A law is being proposed that would require the installation [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 20 Dec 2013, 18:33
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

Kudos [?]: 253 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 04 May 2013
Posts: 354

Kudos [?]: 143 [0], given: 70

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, 01:20
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.....

Kudos [?]: 143 [0], given: 70

Manager
Manager
User avatar
Status: Work hard in silence, let success make the noise
Joined: 25 Nov 2013
Posts: 159

Kudos [?]: 79 [0], given: 84

Location: India
Concentration: Finance, General Management
GMAT 1: 540 Q50 V15
GMAT 2: 640 Q50 V27
GPA: 3.11
WE: Consulting (Computer Software)
Re: A law is being proposed that would require the installation [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 Dec 2013, 04:52
Excellent question. I was confused between A and E. Went with A and got it wrong.
Its only after reading explanation by daagh, I was convinced that E is the correct answer.
_________________

Sahil Chaudhary
If you find this post helpful, please take a moment to click on the "+1 KUDOS" icon.
My IELTS 7.5 Experience
From 540 to 640...Done with GMAT!!!
http://www.sahilchaudhary007.blogspot.com

Kudos [?]: 79 [0], given: 84

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 04 May 2013
Posts: 354

Kudos [?]: 143 [0], given: 70

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, 14:29
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..

Kudos [?]: 143 [0], given: 70

Verbal Forum Moderator
Verbal Forum Moderator
User avatar
Joined: 29 Apr 2015
Posts: 895

Kudos [?]: 1711 [0], given: 302

Location: Switzerland
Concentration: Economics, Finance
Schools: LBS MIF '19
WE: Asset Management (Investment Banking)
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member
Re: A law is being proposed that would require the installation [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 May 2015, 05:02
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 !



Seriously, is AC E correct? You must weaken the restauranteur's argument and therefore find an argument that's against CPR. However AC E is in favor of CPR? Am I misunderstanding AC E?
_________________

Saving was yesterday, heat up the gmatclub.forum's sentiment by spending KUDOS!

PS Please send me PM if I do not respond to your question within 24 hours.

Kudos [?]: 1711 [0], given: 302

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 27 Jul 2014
Posts: 328

Kudos [?]: 64 [0], given: 15

Schools: ISB '15
GMAT 1: 660 Q49 V30
GPA: 3.76
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge
Re: A law is being proposed that would require the installation [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 May 2015, 00:08
cssk wrote:
E is the best choice.

Conclusion: Majority of heart attacks can be prevented by employing CPR.

In order to weaken this conclusion given in the stimulus, find an answer choice that highlights the ineffectiveness of employing CPR to reduce heart attack deaths.


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 ofcardiopulmonary 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.Having no formal training will not hurt the conclusion. What if all the individuals be trained in some or other way?
Since new restaurants are but a small fraction of all restaurants in the area, the new law would be extremely narrow in scope. New restaurants being only a fraction of all restaurants in the area would not limit the effectiveness of the restauranteur's plan. What if most of the customers in the area visit those new restaurants?
The installation of defibrillators in new restaurants costs significantly less than the installation of fire suppression equipment.Cost is not mentioned as a factor affecting the plan in the stimulus. Irrelevant.
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.This choice strengthens the conclusion as less time to respond helps timely employment of CPR.
The largest proportion of heart attack deaths result from situations in which no cardiopulmonary resuscitation-trained individuals are present.If more heart attacks occur in situations where CPR trained personnel are not available, then the proposed plan would not have its intended effect. This choice best weakens the conclusion.

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 !



Hi Moksh,

As mentioned above conclusion is heart attacks can be prevented by using CPR
and option E states ,most heart attacks occur at a place where there are no CPR trained personnel.

So its just mentioning conclusion in other way round, i fail to understand how is this weakening the conclusion

Kudos [?]: 64 [0], given: 15

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 24 Jul 2011
Posts: 231

Kudos [?]: 47 [0], given: 93

Location: India
GMAT 1: 570 Q50 V19
GMAT 2: 650 Q49 V28
GMAT 3: 690 Q50 V34
WE: Information Technology (Investment Banking)
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge
Re: A law is being proposed that would require the installation [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 Sep 2015, 01:35
Leading local restaurant owner said the timely employment of CPR can save a lot of lives. But what if sufficient number of CPR trained people is not available then law requiring CPR is of no use. E states that most deaths were caused when "no cardiopulmonary resuscitation-trained individuals are present"


kanigmat011 wrote:
cssk wrote:
E is the best choice.

Conclusion: Majority of heart attacks can be prevented by employing CPR.

In order to weaken this conclusion given in the stimulus, find an answer choice that highlights the ineffectiveness of employing CPR to reduce heart attack deaths.


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 ofcardiopulmonary 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.Having no formal training will not hurt the conclusion. What if all the individuals be trained in some or other way?
Since new restaurants are but a small fraction of all restaurants in the area, the new law would be extremely narrow in scope. New restaurants being only a fraction of all restaurants in the area would not limit the effectiveness of the restauranteur's plan. What if most of the customers in the area visit those new restaurants?
The installation of defibrillators in new restaurants costs significantly less than the installation of fire suppression equipment.Cost is not mentioned as a factor affecting the plan in the stimulus. Irrelevant.
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.This choice strengthens the conclusion as less time to respond helps timely employment of CPR.
The largest proportion of heart attack deaths result from situations in which no cardiopulmonary resuscitation-trained individuals are present.If more heart attacks occur in situations where CPR trained personnel are not available, then the proposed plan would not have its intended effect. This choice best weakens the conclusion.

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 !



Hi Moksh,

As mentioned above conclusion is heart attacks can be prevented by using CPR
and option E states ,most heart attacks occur at a place where there are no CPR trained personnel.

So its just mentioning conclusion in other way round, i fail to understand how is this weakening the conclusion

_________________

Middle of nowhere!

Kudos [?]: 47 [0], given: 93

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Posts: 70

Kudos [?]: 24 [0], given: 20

A law is being proposed that would require the installation [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 12 Oct 2015, 11:21
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!

Kudos [?]: 24 [0], given: 20

A law is being proposed that would require the installation   [#permalink] 12 Oct 2015, 11:21

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 22 posts ] 

    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
57 A proposed change to federal income tax laws would eliminate omega17 32 17 Jul 2016, 09:08
2 A proposed law in State Q requires that all applicants bschool83 15 19 Feb 2016, 12:57
8 The purpose of the proposed law requiring a doctor's reply2spg 20 27 Apr 2017, 19:36
3 A proposed ordinance requires the installation WaterFlowsUp 6 16 Aug 2017, 06:35
The state legislature has proposed a law that would require suntaurian 7 03 May 2016, 20:36
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  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions| 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®.