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

 It is currently 18 Nov 2018, 00:10

### 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

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

## Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in November
PrevNext
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
28293031123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
2526272829301
Open Detailed Calendar
• ### How to QUICKLY Solve GMAT Questions - GMAT Club Chat

November 20, 2018

November 20, 2018

09:00 AM PST

10:00 AM PST

The reward for signing up with the registration form and attending the chat is: 6 free examPAL quizzes to practice your new skills after the chat.
• ### The winning strategy for 700+ on the GMAT

November 20, 2018

November 20, 2018

06:00 PM EST

07:00 PM EST

What people who reach the high 700's do differently? We're going to share insights, tips and strategies from data we collected on over 50,000 students who used examPAL.

# A new medical procedure replaces all three of the tiny bones

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 14 Jan 2013
Posts: 143
Concentration: Strategy, Technology
GMAT Date: 08-01-2013
GPA: 3.7
WE: Consulting (Consulting)
A new medical procedure replaces all three of the tiny bones  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Jul 2013, 01:07
14
50
00:00

Difficulty:

95% (hard)

Question Stats:

25% (01:16) correct 75% (01:36) wrong based on 1233 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

A new medical procedure replaces all three of the tiny bones in the inner ear with a single piece of ultra-thin fiberglass. The procedure has been found to greatly improve hearing in people who have experienced damage to these bones, though it is useless to people whose hearing loss stems from a neurological malfunction. This procedure will benefit a relatively small percentage of the hearing-impaired population

Which of the following can be concluded from the argument above?

A)It is possible to hear without the use of the three tiny bones in the inner ear.
B)Most hearing loss is due to neurological malfunctioning.
C)More people have impaired hearing because of neurological damage than because of damage to the tiny bones of the inner ear.
D)Hearing loss due to neurological damage is more severe than hearing loss due to damage to the tiny bones in the inner ear.
E)The use of fiberglass cannot help people who have lost hearing due to neurological damage.

_________________

"Where are my Kudos" ............ Good Question = kudos

"Start enjoying all phases" & all Sections

__________________________________________________________________
http://gmatclub.com/forum/collection-of-articles-on-critical-reasoning-159959.html

http://gmatclub.com/forum/percentages-700-800-level-questions-130588.html

http://gmatclub.com/forum/700-to-800-level-quant-question-with-detail-soluition-143321.html

Retired Moderator
Joined: 15 Jun 2012
Posts: 1028
Location: United States
Re: A new medical procedure replaces all three of the tiny bones  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Jul 2013, 14:57
18
10
Mountain14 wrote:
A new medical procedure replaces all three of the tiny bones in the inner ear with a single piece of ultra-thin fiberglass. The procedure has been found to greatly improve hearing in people who have experienced damage to these bones, though it is useless to people whose hearing loss stems from a neurological malfunction. This procedure will benefit a relatively small percentage of the hearing-impaired population

Which of the following can be concluded from the argument above?

A)It is possible to hear without the use of the three tiny bones in the inner ear.
B)Most hearing loss is due to neurological malfunctioning.
C)More people have impaired hearing because of neurological damage than because of damage to the tiny bones of the inner ear.
D)Hearing loss due to neurological damage is more severe than hearing loss due to damage to the tiny bones in the inner ear.
E)The use of fiberglass cannot help people who have lost hearing due to neurological damage.

Interesting question. Key to solve this question is “question stem”. This question is “INFERENCE” question, not “must be true” question.

A little bit difference between the two.

(1) Must be true
- Fact test / No “new info” accepted
- Correct answers (1) Paraphrasing OR (2) Combination

(2) Inference
- Subcategory of Must be true
- Have to pass “Fact test”
- Wrong answers: Only repeat premises

Thus, any answer that only repeat (paraphrase) premises is WRONG. You should “infer” or conclude a “main point”, not just repeat what the stimulus says in another way.

ANALYZE THE STIMULUS:

Fact #1: A new medical procedure replaces all three of the tiny bones in the inner ear with a single piece of ultra-thin fiberglass
Fact #2: . The procedure has been found to greatly improve hearing in people who have experienced damage to these bones, though it is useless to people whose hearing loss stems from a neurological malfunction
Conclusion: This procedure will benefit a relatively small percentage of the hearing-impaired population

A)It is possible to hear without the use of the three tiny bones in the inner ear.
Correct. The fact #2 says the procedure improves hearing in people who have tiny bones in the inner ear damaged. The word “improve” clearly indicate that people are still possible to hear even though the hearing quality is not really good.

B)Most hearing loss is due to neurological malfunctioning.
Wrong. The conclusion says: “small percentage of the hearing-impaired population (who have tiny bones damaged) will benefit”. But “small” differs from “none”. Thus, we cannot infer that “most hearing loss is due to neurological malfunctioning”.

C)More people have impaired hearing because of neurological damage than because of damage to the tiny bones of the inner ear.
Wrong. SHELL GAME. It’s not the correct answer. The reason is:
we cant infer this because the argument ONLY states that :
procedure will benefit a relatively small percentage of the hearing-impaired population.

Let say there are 10 types of hearing impairment(including bone damage one and neurologically impaired)
let say this procedures cures only those impairments which is caused by BONE DAMAGE.....still the statement holds that :procedure will benefit a relatively small percentage of the hearing-impaired population.
hence that option is not repeated in the premise.
(I borrowed this example from Blueseas)

D)Hearing loss due to neurological damage is more severe than hearing loss due to damage to the tiny bones in the inner ear.
Wrong. Out of scope. Nothing about “severe”.

E)The use of fiberglass cannot help people who have lost hearing due to neurological damage.
Wrong. SHELL GAME. This is TRUE. (see fact #2 which says: it’s useless…..) But it’s not the correct answer. The question does not ask you to find a “must be true” answer. We must find an "inference" answer.

TAKE AWAY:
- Always read the question stem carefully. Determine exactly the type of question
- “Inference question” differs from “Must be true”. Any answer that only repeat /paraphrase a premise is WRONG.

Hope it helps.
_________________

Please +1 KUDO if my post helps. Thank you.

"Designing cars consumes you; it has a hold on your spirit which is incredibly powerful. It's not something you can do part time, you have do it with all your heart and soul or you're going to get it wrong."

Chris Bangle - Former BMW Chief of Design.

##### General Discussion
Manager
Joined: 10 Apr 2013
Posts: 108
Re: A new medical procedure replaces all three of the tiny bones  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Jul 2013, 02:24
IMO C

Since "This procedure will benefit a relatively small percentage of the hearing-impaired population. It can be inferred that more people suffer from impaired hearing due to neurological damage than because of damage to the tiny bones of the inner ear.

Regards

Argha
Director
Joined: 14 Dec 2012
Posts: 766
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Operations
GMAT 1: 700 Q50 V34
GPA: 3.6
Re: A new medical procedure replaces all three of the tiny bones  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Jul 2013, 05:58
6
argha wrote:
IMO C

Since "This procedure will benefit a relatively small percentage of the hearing-impaired population. It can be inferred that more people suffer from impaired hearing due to neurological damage than because of damage to the tiny bones of the inner ear.

Regards

Argha

sorry argha...but i want to contradict on this.

A new medical procedure replaces all three of the tiny bones in the inner ear with a single piece of ultra-thin fiberglass. The procedure has been found to greatly improve hearing in people who have experienced damage to these bones, though it is useless to people whose hearing loss stems from a neurological malfunction. This procedure will benefit a relatively small percentage of the hearing-impaired population

Which of the following can be concluded from the argument above?

A)It is possible to hear without the use of the three tiny bones in the inner ear.
this one is correct ==>as it is stated in argument that bones are replaced by ultra thin fibre glass..and the people are hearing without bones.

B)Most hearing loss is due to neurological malfunctioning.
we cant say MOST==>this is extreme.

C)More people have impaired hearing because of neurological damage than because of damage to the tiny bones of the inner ear.
we cannot compare this......although the presence of line "This procedure will benefit a relatively small percentage of the hearing-impaired population"==>it doesnt tells us that only 2 type of hearing impairment is there..there may be plenty other type of hearing impairment in which this method is not successful.

D)Hearing loss due to neurological damage is more severe than hearing loss due to damage to the tiny bones in the inner ear.
we cant compare the severity ...as it is nowhere stated in the passage.

E)The use of fiberglass cannot help people who have lost hearing due to neurological damage.
this one is awkward....use of fibreglass==>we dont know.

hence A
_________________

When you want to succeed as bad as you want to breathe ...then you will be successfull....

GIVE VALUE TO OFFICIAL QUESTIONS...

learn AWA writing techniques while watching video : http://www.gmatprepnow.com/module/gmat-analytical-writing-assessment

Manager
Joined: 22 Apr 2013
Posts: 81
Re: A new medical procedure replaces all three of the tiny bones  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Jul 2013, 07:42
2
Mountain14 wrote:
A new medical procedure replaces all three of the tiny bones in the inner ear with a single piece of ultra-thin fiberglass. The procedure has been found to greatly improve hearing in people who have experienced damage to these bones,--When the bones are damaged they either are not transmitting sound to the eardrum or only doing so in a limited way. The stimulus says hearing is improved, not restored. Once you understand this point, A is the obvious answer.

though it is useless to people whose hearing loss stems from a neurological malfunction. This procedure will benefit a relatively small percentage of the hearing-impaired population

Which of the following can be concluded from the argument above?

It is possible to hear without the use of the three tiny bones in the inner ear. See above explanation.

Most hearing loss is due to neurological malfunctioning. Stimulus says this won't help people with neurological hearing loss. It says nothing about other causes of hearing loss.

More people have impaired hearing because of neurological damage than because of damage to the tiny bones of the inner ear. Same as answer B, just phrased differently.

Hearing loss due to neurological damage is more severe than hearing loss due to damage to the tiny bones in the inner ear. The stimulus only states Neurological hearing loss will not be helped by this procedure. No mention or inference is made as to which type of hearing loss is generally more severe.

The use of fiberglass cannot help people who have lost hearing due to neurological damage. This is specifically stated in the stimulus.
_________________

I do not beg for kudos.

Manager
Joined: 21 Aug 2012
Posts: 116
Re: A new medical procedure replaces all three of the tiny bones  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Jul 2013, 07:42
1
Which of the following can be concluded from the argument above?

A)It is possible to hear without the use of the three tiny bones in the inner ear.
Can be inferred as the argument says the procedure will improve hearing.. That means people with damaged tiny bones still hear..

B)Most hearing loss is due to neurological malfunctioning.
Very tempting.... We are talking about the contribution of a medical procedure to hearing-impaired population...
The procedure is useless to neurological malfunction.. That does not mean hearing loss is due to neurological malfunctioning.

C)More people have impaired hearing because of neurological damage than because of damage to the tiny bones of the inner ear.
Again.. Same as B.. We are talking about the contribution of a medical procedure to hearing-impaired population..
People having more or less impaired due to neuro is out of context.. We are focused on the benfit the procedure provides.

D)Hearing loss due to neurological damage is more severe than hearing loss due to damage to the tiny bones in the inner ear.

Cannot be stated.. Since procedure does not work for neuro malfunction cases, does not mean that neurological damage is a more severe than damanged bone

E)The use of fiberglass cannot help people who have lost hearing due to neurological damage.
Huge diffrence b/w ultra-thin fiberglass and fiberglass.
[/quote]
_________________

MODULUS Concept ---> http://gmatclub.com/forum/inequalities-158054.html#p1257636
HEXAGON Theory ---> http://gmatclub.com/forum/hexagon-theory-tips-to-solve-any-heaxgon-question-158189.html#p1258308

Director
Joined: 14 Dec 2012
Posts: 766
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Operations
GMAT 1: 700 Q50 V34
GPA: 3.6
Re: A new medical procedure replaces all three of the tiny bones  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Jul 2013, 15:19
2
pqhai wrote:
Mountain14 wrote:
A new medical procedure replaces all three of the tiny bones in the inner ear with a single piece of ultra-thin fiberglass. The procedure has been found to greatly improve hearing in people who have experienced damage to these bones, though it is useless to people whose hearing loss stems from a neurological malfunction. This procedure will benefit a relatively small percentage of the hearing-impaired population

Which of the following can be concluded from the argument above?

A)It is possible to hear without the use of the three tiny bones in the inner ear.
B)Most hearing loss is due to neurological malfunctioning.
C)More people have impaired hearing because of neurological damage than because of damage to the tiny bones of the inner ear.
D)Hearing loss due to neurological damage is more severe than hearing loss due to damage to the tiny bones in the inner ear.
E)The use of fiberglass cannot help people who have lost hearing due to neurological damage.

(1) Must be true
- Fact test / No “new info” accepted
- Correct answers (1) Paraphrasing OR (2) Combination

(2) Inference
- Subcategory of Must be true
- Have to pass “Fact test”
- Wrong answers: Only repeat premises
Thus, any answer that only repeat (paraphrase) premises is WRONG. You should “infer” or conclude a “main point”, not just repeat what the stimulus says in another way.

hi pghai ,

great explanation as usual...but will point out something which i think is not correct.

a correct answer can be the paraphrase of one of the premises.

lets say argument says:
MOST PEOPLE WHO GO TO HARVARD WRITES VERY WELL.

and if an answer choice states:
if a person goes to harvard then its a strong likelihood that he writes well==>this is just the paraphrase...but this can be the correct answer.

moreover option C YOU CANT INFER===>
C)More people have impaired hearing because of neurological damage than because of damage to the tiny bones of the inner ear.

we cant compare this because only argument states that :
procedure will benefit a relatively small percentage of the hearing-impaired population

now let say there are 10 types of hearing impairment(including bone damage one and neurologically impaired)
let say this procedures cures only those impairments which is caused by BONE DAMAGE.....still the statement holds that :procedure will benefit a relatively small percentage of the hearing-impaired population.
hence that option is not repeated in the premise.

SUGGETIONS
_________________

When you want to succeed as bad as you want to breathe ...then you will be successfull....

GIVE VALUE TO OFFICIAL QUESTIONS...

learn AWA writing techniques while watching video : http://www.gmatprepnow.com/module/gmat-analytical-writing-assessment

Retired Moderator
Joined: 15 Jun 2012
Posts: 1028
Location: United States
Re: A new medical procedure replaces all three of the tiny bones  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Jul 2013, 15:42
blueseas wrote:
pqhai wrote:
Mountain14 wrote:
A new medical procedure replaces all three of the tiny bones in the inner ear with a single piece of ultra-thin fiberglass. The procedure has been found to greatly improve hearing in people who have experienced damage to these bones, though it is useless to people whose hearing loss stems from a neurological malfunction. This procedure will benefit a relatively small percentage of the hearing-impaired population

Which of the following can be concluded from the argument above?

A)It is possible to hear without the use of the three tiny bones in the inner ear.
B)Most hearing loss is due to neurological malfunctioning.
C)More people have impaired hearing because of neurological damage than because of damage to the tiny bones of the inner ear.
D)Hearing loss due to neurological damage is more severe than hearing loss due to damage to the tiny bones in the inner ear.
E)The use of fiberglass cannot help people who have lost hearing due to neurological damage.

(1) Must be true
- Fact test / No “new info” accepted
- Correct answers (1) Paraphrasing OR (2) Combination

(2) Inference
- Subcategory of Must be true
- Have to pass “Fact test”
- Wrong answers: Only repeat premises
Thus, any answer that only repeat (paraphrase) premises is WRONG. You should “infer” or conclude a “main point”, not just repeat what the stimulus says in another way.

hi pghai ,

great explanation as usual...but will point out something which i think is not correct.

a correct answer can be the paraphrase of one of the premises.

lets say argument says:
MOST PEOPLE WHO GO TO HARVARD WRITES VERY WELL.

and if an answer choice states:
if a person goes to harvard then its a strong likelihood that he writes well==>this is just the paraphrase...but this can be the correct answer.

moreover option C YOU CANT INFER===>
C)More people have impaired hearing because of neurological damage than because of damage to the tiny bones of the inner ear.

we cant compare this because only argument states that :
procedure will benefit a relatively small percentage of the hearing-impaired population

now let say there are 10 types of hearing impairment(including bone damage one and neurologically impaired)
let say this procedures cures only those impairments which is caused by BONE DAMAGE.....still the statement holds that :procedure will benefit a relatively small percentage of the hearing-impaired population.
hence that option is not repeated in the premise.

SUGGETIONS

Hi blueseas.

Your idea is brilliant! Thanks for your suggestion. My post is fixed.

Best.
_________________

Please +1 KUDO if my post helps. Thank you.

"Designing cars consumes you; it has a hold on your spirit which is incredibly powerful. It's not something you can do part time, you have do it with all your heart and soul or you're going to get it wrong."

Chris Bangle - Former BMW Chief of Design.

Board of Directors
Joined: 01 Sep 2010
Posts: 3306
Re: A new medical procedure replaces all three of the tiny bones  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Jul 2013, 17:54
5
1
Hi folks,

let me say or to point out a couple of considerations on that
- this question is a bit flawed because analyzing the stimulus i do not see anything that could be infer and bringing what pqhai said

Quote:
(1) Must be true
- Fact test / No “new info” accepted
- Correct answers (1) Paraphrasing OR (2) Combination

(2) Inference
- Subcategory of Must be true
- Have to pass “Fact test”
- Wrong answers: Only repeat premises
well this is correct but at the same time is too rigid. I noticed in the OG (because this is the landmark, no matter what a question from a prep company is well formulated) this: is NOT as simple as it seems. more often is a mix of these things

One very important thing to keep in mind, while evaluating options on an Inference question, is that the correct option must be true under all conditions/possibilities. There may be some options which may be true under some situations and may not be true under others. These will not be the correct answer.

Quote:
ANALYZE THE STIMULUS:

Fact #1: A new medical procedure replaces all three of the tiny bones in the inner ear with a single piece of ultra-thin fiberglass
Fact #2: . The procedure has been found to greatly improve hearing in people who have experienced damage to these bones, though it is useless to people whose hearing loss stems from a neurological malfunction
Conclusion: This procedure will benefit a relatively small percentage of the hearing-impaired population

fact #1 this just says that something new can replace something else. restoring the previous situation as much as possible

fact 2# who has a fisical damage can be helped to replanish that and gains improvement from that unless the damage comes from something else that is much deeper as cause, difficult to fix with a simple bones' replacement (i.e. neurological malfunction)

Conclusion: this is not a conclusion following the logic chain. moreover we have no signal words, such as: therefore and so on. I never see a conclusion on gmatland that has not been introduced by these words

Do remember that the stimulus of an Inference question may not necessarily be in the form of an argument. In fact, most often the stimulus will contain a set of facts.

Quote:

A)It is possible to hear without the use of the three tiny bones in the inner ear.
Correct. The fact #2 says the procedure improves hearing in people who have tiny bones in the inner ear damaged. The word “improve” clearly indicate that people are still possible to hear even though the hearing quality is not really good.

Here the correct answer have the word without and the argument talks about improve......mmmm this seems a bit nonsensical to me.

Improve is something that starts from 1 or 2 not from scratch: I improve my skills but i have at least 1 skill already. Here instead we are talking about without.........

I can ear even a bit. That say, near the threshold of zero and i have my bones damaged but I can still ear but i cannot do that without my tiny bones.

Major takeaway from all this:

Inference does not mean to summarize the argument – An inference does not have to
provide a logical conclusion to the stimulus nor does it have to be a summary of the
argument. It just has to be a fact that can most definitely be concluded given the information
in the stimulus. It goes without saying that there can be multiple inferences that can be
arrived at from a given stimulus.

Don’t bother predicting the answer – Because multiple inferences can be made from a given
stimulus, it doesn’t make sense to predict the answer. Instead look at each option and try to
eliminate extreme options or those that are outside the scope of the argument.

Always avoid Extreme options – It is human nature to read too much between the lines. In
fact this quality may even be beneficial or an asset in real life. However, on the GMAT this
will prove to be a liability. If you read too much between the lines, you will most likely end
up with extreme or strongly worded options, which will almost never be the correct answer to
an Inference question. So avoid options that contain extreme words such as must, always, only,
cannot be determined, etc. Instead go with options that contain vague words such as usually,
maybe, might, sometimes, possibly, etc.

Never use outside knowledge to answer Inference Questions – If you avoid extreme
options, you will automatically end up avoiding making use of outside knowledge while
evaluating options

Assumptions play no role in Inference questions – Unlike the five question types we saw
earlier, Inference questions will not require you to identify the assumption in the argument.
In most cases the stimulus won’t contain an argument in the first place but just a set of facts.

Avoid Explain Answers – A common wrong answer trap in Inference questions is an option
that explains the situation in the stimulus. These options will look extremely logical to you
but remember that the question is not asking you to explain the stimulus but to infer
something from it.
_________________
Senior Manager
Joined: 07 Apr 2012
Posts: 370
Re: A new medical procedure replaces all three of the tiny bones  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Jun 2014, 11:09
jaituteja wrote:
Which of the following can be concluded from the argument above?

A)It is possible to hear without the use of the three tiny bones in the inner ear.
Can be inferred as the argument says the procedure will improve hearing.. That means people with damaged tiny bones still hear..

B)Most hearing loss is due to neurological malfunctioning.
Very tempting.... We are talking about the contribution of a medical procedure to hearing-impaired population...
The procedure is useless to neurological malfunction.. That does not mean hearing loss is due to neurological malfunctioning.

C)More people have impaired hearing because of neurological damage than because of damage to the tiny bones of the inner ear.
Again.. Same as B.. We are talking about the contribution of a medical procedure to hearing-impaired population..
People having more or less impaired due to neuro is out of context.. We are focused on the benfit the procedure provides.

D)Hearing loss due to neurological damage is more severe than hearing loss due to damage to the tiny bones in the inner ear.

Cannot be stated.. Since procedure does not work for neuro malfunction cases, does not mean that neurological damage is a more severe than damanged bone

E)The use of fiberglass cannot help people who have lost hearing due to neurological damage.
Huge diffrence b/w ultra-thin fiberglass and fiberglass.
[/quote]
The stimulus states that this procedure will not help most of the hearing impaired.
This means, that most of the hearing impaired population is suffering due to neuro problems and not the bones...
Why can't this be concluded?
Manager
Joined: 28 Apr 2014
Posts: 223
Re: A new medical procedure replaces all three of the tiny bones  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Jun 2014, 00:53
Pretty exhaustive explanations from all but I still can't figure out why E is not correct or for that matter C
Manager
Joined: 28 Apr 2014
Posts: 223
Re: A new medical procedure replaces all three of the tiny bones  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Jun 2014, 00:53
Pretty exhaustive explanations from all but I still can't figure out why E is not correct or for that matter C
Intern
Joined: 09 Jun 2015
Posts: 12
Concentration: Statistics, Technology
Re: A new medical procedure replaces all three of the tiny bones  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 Sep 2015, 15:00
blueseas wrote:
argha wrote:
IMO C

Since "This procedure will benefit a relatively small percentage of the hearing-impaired population. It can be inferred that more people suffer from impaired hearing due to neurological damage than because of damage to the tiny bones of the inner ear.

Regards

Argha

sorry argha...but i want to contradict on this.

A new medical procedure replaces all three of the tiny bones in the inner ear with a single piece of ultra-thin fiberglass. The procedure has been found to greatly improve hearing in people who have experienced damage to these bones, though it is useless to people whose hearing loss stems from a neurological malfunction. This procedure will benefit a relatively small percentage of the hearing-impaired population

Which of the following can be concluded from the argument above?

A)It is possible to hear without the use of the three tiny bones in the inner ear.
this one is correct ==>as it is stated in argument that bones are replaced by ultra thin fibre glass..and the people are hearing without bones.

B)Most hearing loss is due to neurological malfunctioning.
we cant say MOST==>this is extreme.

C)More people have impaired hearing because of neurological damage than because of damage to the tiny bones of the inner ear.
we cannot compare this......although the presence of line "This procedure will benefit a relatively small percentage of the hearing-impaired population"==>it doesnt tells us that only 2 type of hearing impairment is there..there may be plenty other type of hearing impairment in which this method is not successful.

D)Hearing loss due to neurological damage is more severe than hearing loss due to damage to the tiny bones in the inner ear.
we cant compare the severity ...as it is nowhere stated in the passage.

E)The use of fiberglass cannot help people who have lost hearing due to neurological damage.
this one is awkward....use of fibreglass==>we dont know.

hence A

But if we can improve hearing loss that stems from damage of the 3 bones and we cannot likewise improve the loss from neurological damage, doesn't that automatically mean that hearing loss from 3 bones is less severe than that of neurological damage? Then why is option D wrong?
Intern
Joined: 16 Aug 2015
Posts: 21
Re: A new medical procedure replaces all three of the tiny bones  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 Sep 2015, 15:49
I think option D is wrong because it focuses mostly on the intensity of the hearing loss, and nowhere in the argument this point was made explicit. Not being able to improve hearing when caused by neurological damage does not imply directly that it's more severe than that caused by bones damage.

Another point that i think is important to cite, neurological damage is subtly different from neurlogical malfunction.

Hope it helps
Current Student
Joined: 30 Mar 2017
Posts: 6
Re: A new medical procedure replaces all three of the tiny bones  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

31 Mar 2017, 17:05
blueseas wrote:
argha wrote:
IMO C

Since "This procedure will benefit a relatively small percentage of the hearing-impaired population. It can be inferred that more people suffer from impaired hearing due to neurological damage than because of damage to the tiny bones of the inner ear.

Regards

Argha

sorry argha...but i want to contradict on this.

A new medical procedure replaces all three of the tiny bones in the inner ear with a single piece of ultra-thin fiberglass. The procedure has been found to greatly improve hearing in people who have experienced damage to these bones, though it is useless to people whose hearing loss stems from a neurological malfunction. This procedure will benefit a relatively small percentage of the hearing-impaired population

Which of the following can be concluded from the argument above?

A)It is possible to hear without the use of the three tiny bones in the inner ear.
this one is correct ==>as it is stated in argument that bones are replaced by ultra thin fibre glass..and the people are hearing without bones.

B)Most hearing loss is due to neurological malfunctioning.
we cant say MOST==>this is extreme.

C)More people have impaired hearing because of neurological damage than because of damage to the tiny bones of the inner ear.
we cannot compare this......although the presence of line "This procedure will benefit a relatively small percentage of the hearing-impaired population"==>it doesnt tells us that only 2 type of hearing impairment is there..there may be plenty other type of hearing impairment in which this method is not successful.

D)Hearing loss due to neurological damage is more severe than hearing loss due to damage to the tiny bones in the inner ear.
we cant compare the severity ...as it is nowhere stated in the passage.

E)The use of fiberglass cannot help people who have lost hearing due to neurological damage.
this one is awkward....use of fibreglass==>we dont know.

hence A

I would disagree, technically, in that A is incomplete - it is possible to hear without the use of the three tiny bones in the inner ear specifically when they have been replaced by the piece of fiberglass. That is ambiguous to me, as it could also be implying that the 3 bones aren't necessary at all. B can't be said, we don't know about proportions of the cause of hearing damage. I think E is actually a better answer, as it simply restates what is said in the question, essentially (it [the fiberglass] is useless to people whose hearing loss stems from a neurological malfunction).
Manager
Joined: 09 Jan 2016
Posts: 115
GPA: 3.4
WE: General Management (Human Resources)
Re: A new medical procedure replaces all three of the tiny bones  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Apr 2017, 06:43
HarveyS wrote:
A new medical procedure replaces all three of the tiny bones in the inner ear with a single piece of ultra-thin fiberglass. The procedure has been found to greatly improve hearing in people who have experienced damage to these bones, though it is useless to people whose hearing loss stems from a neurological malfunction. This procedure will benefit a relatively small percentage of the hearing-impaired population

Which of the following can be concluded from the argument above?

A)It is possible to hear without the use of the three tiny bones in the inner ear.
B)Most hearing loss is due to neurological malfunctioning.
C)More people have impaired hearing because of neurological damage than because of damage to the tiny bones of the inner ear.
D)Hearing loss due to neurological damage is more severe than hearing loss due to damage to the tiny bones in the inner ear.
E)The use of fiberglass cannot help people who have lost hearing due to neurological damage.
This is a tricky one..I am with A..it can be deduced from the argument that People can still hear without the tiny bones..it mentioned in the argument those will improve the hearing in people.B uses extreme word..e is out of scope...the argument do not ensure what is given in C and D.
SVP
Joined: 12 Dec 2016
Posts: 1674
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V33
GPA: 3.64
Re: A new medical procedure replaces all three of the tiny bones  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Sep 2017, 09:15
1
this is a common trap in gmat, there can be more than 2 causes for the problem, and the percentage or the number (amount) is not enough to tell about the causes.

Here, only A is the winner.
Intern
Joined: 30 Aug 2018
Posts: 17
A new medical procedure replaces all three of the tiny bones  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Oct 2018, 05:47
I think answer A is technically incomplete. The fibreglass replaces the three ear bones and "might" mimic the function of the three bones. So, we cannot say that one can hear without the three bones. The function is still important, isn't it?

Choice E seems more relevant. No focus has been given in the question on the form of the fibreglass. There must be an underlying assumption that fibreglass in any form is unhelpful.

Expert thoughts anyone?
Manager
Joined: 31 May 2015
Posts: 103
Re: A new medical procedure replaces all three of the tiny bones  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Oct 2018, 03:01
It seems to me that some of these gmat questions use the art of word manipulation, kind of like when a magician plays tricks on you. Nothing wrong with that, but how is that going to help us in Business school is it because throughout our professional lives we will encounter not very honest people trying to take advantage of business deals using such techniques.
_________________

GMAT loosers are born not made !!!

Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 8550
Location: Pune, India
Re: A new medical procedure replaces all three of the tiny bones  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Oct 2018, 04:40
HarveyS wrote:
A new medical procedure replaces all three of the tiny bones in the inner ear with a single piece of ultra-thin fiberglass. The procedure has been found to greatly improve hearing in people who have experienced damage to these bones, though it is useless to people whose hearing loss stems from a neurological malfunction. This procedure will benefit a relatively small percentage of the hearing-impaired population

Which of the following can be concluded from the argument above?

A)It is possible to hear without the use of the three tiny bones in the inner ear.
B)Most hearing loss is due to neurological malfunctioning.
C)More people have impaired hearing because of neurological damage than because of damage to the tiny bones of the inner ear.
D)Hearing loss due to neurological damage is more severe than hearing loss due to damage to the tiny bones in the inner ear.
E)The use of fiberglass cannot help people who have lost hearing due to neurological damage.

Argument:

- In a new procedure, all 3 tiny bones are replaced by a piece of fibreglass.
- It improves hearing in people who have experienced damage to these bones
- It is useless to people whose hearing loss stems from a neurological malfunction.
- It will benefit a relatively small percentage of the hearing-impaired population (note that this is not derived from the previous two statements. This just tells us that the number of people who have hearing loss due to damage to these 3 bones is a relatively small percentage)

A)It is possible to hear without the use of the three tiny bones in the inner ear.
Since it "improves" hearing, we can say that it is possible to hear even with damage to the 3 bones.

B)Most hearing loss is due to neurological malfunctioning.
Not necessary. We know that the number of people who have hearing loss due to damage to these 3 bones is a relatively small percentage. There could be 5 other reasons for hearing loss.

C)More people have impaired hearing because of neurological damage than because of damage to the tiny bones of the inner ear.
Again, not necessary. We don't know how many people have impaired hearing because of neurological damage. It could be a small number or a big number. We just know that people who have hearing loss due to damage to these 3 bones is a relatively small percentage

D)Hearing loss due to neurological damage is more severe than hearing loss due to damage to the tiny bones in the inner ear.
Not known. Which loss is more severe is certainly not known. We just know that a piece of fibreglass can fix the 3 bones damage. How and how much can we fix the neurological damage, we cannot say.

E)The use of fiberglass cannot help people who have lost hearing due to neurological damage.
Not known. This procedure (replacing 3 tiny bones with a piece of fibreglass) does not help people who have lost hearing due to neurological damage. Can use of fibreglass in some other way help people with neurological damage, we can't say.

_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor

GMAT self-study has never been more personalized or more fun. Try ORION Free!

Re: A new medical procedure replaces all three of the tiny bones &nbs [#permalink] 23 Oct 2018, 04:40

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 21 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by