It is currently 14 Dec 2017, 22:45

### 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 June
Open Detailed Calendar

# A nutritionist studying the effects of massive doses of

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 07 Jul 2004
Posts: 5032

Kudos [?]: 457 [4], given: 0

Location: Singapore
A nutritionist studying the effects of massive doses of [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Sep 2005, 04:41
4
KUDOS
7
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

85% (hard)

Question Stats:

51% (01:38) correct 49% (01:52) wrong based on 443 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

A nutritionist studying the effects of massive doses of vitamin C found that of a group of 600 people who regularly took 1,500 mg of vitamin C daily for a year, fewer than 9 percent suffered serious cases of flu; of a group of 600 people who took 250 mg of vitamin C (the standard recommended daily allowance) daily for a year, 34 percent suffered at least one serious case of flu; and of a group of 600 people who took no vitamin C for a year (other than that found in the foods in a balanced diet), 32 percent suffered at least one serious case of flu.

Which of the following hypotheses is best supported by the evidence above?
(A) The effectiveness of vitamin C in preventing serious cases of flu increases in direct proportion to the amount of vitamin C taken.
(B) Vitamin C is helpful in preventing disease.
(C) Doses of vitamin C that exceed the standard recommended daily allowance by 500 percent will reduce the incidence of serious cases of flu by 25 percent.
(D) Massive doses of vitamin C can help to prevent serious case of flu.
(E) A balanced diet contains less than 250 mg of vitamin C.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

Kudos [?]: 457 [4], given: 0

SVP
Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 1699

Kudos [?]: 494 [0], given: 0

Location: Dhaka

### Show Tags

10 Sep 2005, 12:28
My pick is D.
_________________

hey ya......

Kudos [?]: 494 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 28 Jun 2005
Posts: 211

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

10 Sep 2005, 13:10
D is good

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 04 Jul 2004
Posts: 893

Kudos [?]: 68 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

10 Sep 2005, 14:00
(D)

(C) is wrong because it enforces that flu were due to deficiency of flu.

Kudos [?]: 68 [0], given: 0

SVP
Joined: 16 Oct 2003
Posts: 1798

Kudos [?]: 174 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

10 Sep 2005, 18:39
D, though not very sure about it. E may also be considered, I guess.

Kudos [?]: 174 [0], given: 0

Intern
Joined: 04 Feb 2005
Posts: 37

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

11 Sep 2005, 01:10
"D" should be right.

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 15 Aug 2005
Posts: 178

Kudos [?]: 7 [1], given: 0

### Show Tags

11 Sep 2005, 01:15
1
KUDOS
That is truly a tough question.
I would go for E.

Reasons:

A : The third fact that only 32% of the ppl suffered chances even though they did not consume any additional C vitamin disporves this theory

B : Too general a statement

C n D : Only a part of the para supports this hypothesis.

E : again, seems a bit too general. But, I would like to stick to this.

OA/OE Plz.
Krishna

Kudos [?]: 7 [1], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 13 Jan 2005
Posts: 329

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 12

### Show Tags

15 Sep 2005, 18:04
I wud pick D. The para starts with "A nutritionist studying the effects of massive doses of vitamin C .."

GA

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 12

Director
Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 838

Kudos [?]: 90 [0], given: 1

GMAT 1: 740 Q48 V42

### Show Tags

15 Sep 2005, 18:10
gandy_achar wrote:
I wud pick D. The para starts with "A nutritionist studying the effects of massive doses of vitamin C .."

GA

Good reasoning achar! I was mulling over B, which is indeed too general a statment.

Kudos [?]: 90 [0], given: 1

Senior Manager
Joined: 07 Jul 2005
Posts: 399

Kudos [?]: 14 [0], given: 0

Location: Sunnyvale, CA

### Show Tags

16 Sep 2005, 02:21
ywilfred wrote:
A nutritionist studying the effects of massive doses of vitamin C found that of a group of 600 people who regularly took 1,500 mg of vitamin C daily for a year, fewer than 9 percent suffered serious cases of flu; of a group of 600 people who took 250 mg of vitamin C (the standard recommended daily allowance) daily for a year, 34 percent suffered at least one serious case of flu; and of a group of 600 people who took no vitamin C for a year (other than that found in the foods in a balanced diet), 32 percent suffered at least one serious case of flu.

Which of the following hypotheses is best supported by the evidence above?
(A) The effectiveness of vitamin C in preventing serious cases of flu increases in direct proportion to the amount of vitamin C taken.
(B) Vitamin C is helpful in preventing disease.
(C) Doses of vitamin C that exceed the standard recommended daily allowance by 500 percent will reduce the incidence of serious cases of flu by 25 percent.
(D) Massive doses of vitamin C can help to prevent serious case of flu.
(E) A balanced diet contains less than 250 mg of vitamin C.

I will go with "B".

Please do POST OA of this question...

Kudos [?]: 14 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 15 Aug 2005
Posts: 257

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

Location: Las Vegas, NV

### Show Tags

16 Sep 2005, 09:08
(A) The effectiveness of vitamin C in preventing serious cases of flu increases in direct proportion to the amount of vitamin C taken.
-Not supported by the argument. A higher percentage of people who took more than 250mg got a serious case than those who took no vitamin C.

(B) Vitamin C is helpful in preventing disease.
-We're talking about the flu, not all disease.

(C) Doses of vitamin C that exceed the standard recommended daily allowance by 500 percent will reduce the incidence of serious cases of flu by 25 percent.
-Not supported.

(D) Massive doses of vitamin C can help to prevent serious case of flu.
-Supported by the argument. Massive doses CAN help but don't guarantee prevention.

(E) A balanced diet contains less than 250 mg of vitamin C.
-The argument is about vitamin C and flu. Not about a balanced diet.

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

Intern
Joined: 20 Sep 2005
Posts: 31

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

### Show Tags

30 Sep 2005, 10:58
Why is C wrong??

This is supported by the argument => Doses of vitamin C that exceed the standard recommended daily allowance by 500 percent will reduce the incidence of serious cases of flu by 25 percent

daily allowance is 250mg. So if this amount is increased by 500 percent, it will be 1500mg. The incidence will be reduced from 34% to 9%.

=> That is correct? Why is not supported?

Thanks.

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

Senior Manager
Joined: 29 Nov 2004
Posts: 477

Kudos [?]: 38 [0], given: 0

Location: Chicago

### Show Tags

30 Sep 2005, 11:17
gmat2006 wrote:
Why is C wrong??

This is supported by the argument => Doses of vitamin C that exceed the standard recommended daily allowance by 500 percent will reduce the incidence of serious cases of flu by 25 percent

daily allowance is 250mg. So if this amount is increased by 500 percent, it will be 1500mg. The incidence will be reduced from 34% to 9%.

=> That is correct? Why is not supported?

Thanks.

My best guess why C is wrong is, you cannot subtract 34 and 9% because the 9% is for serious cases of flu and 34% is for alteast one serious case of flu
_________________

Fear Mediocrity, Respect Ignorance

Kudos [?]: 38 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 03 Aug 2005
Posts: 134

Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

01 Oct 2005, 05:09
I would choose D.

I think C is wrong because it says "will reduce the incidence of serious cases of flu by 25 percent", meaning that if we have a total population of x individuals, with the standard recommended daily allowance we have 0.34*x cases of flu. If we reduce this by 25% we have 0.75*0.34*x=22.5% that is a lot more than the 9% in the argument

Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 14 Sep 2005
Posts: 984

Kudos [?]: 227 [0], given: 0

Location: South Korea

### Show Tags

01 Oct 2005, 07:04
crisnas wrote:
That is truly a tough question.
I would go for E.

Reasons:

A : The third fact that only 32% of the ppl suffered chances even though they did not consume any additional C vitamin disporves this theory

B : Too general a statement

C n D : Only a part of the para supports this hypothesis.

E : again, seems a bit too general. But, I would like to stick to this.

OA/OE Plz.
Krishna

I agree with Krishna, (E).

Kudos [?]: 227 [0], given: 0

Intern
Joined: 09 Sep 2005
Posts: 34

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

01 Oct 2005, 08:10
Well my choice is E. Here goes my reasoning.

Choice D is strong statement to choose. It indicates that Massive doses of vitamin C can help to prevent serious case of flu. Furthermore in the argument it is mentioned that when a group takes 1500 mg of vitamin C, fewer than 9 percent suffered.

Choice B same reasoning too strong statement. Vitamin C is helpful in preventing disease.

Choice A is wrong as in the passage when the people start taking 250 gm of vitamin C, 34 percent suffered at least one serious case of flu.

Choice C is wrong and well explained by ranga.

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 0

Intern
Joined: 09 Sep 2005
Posts: 34

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

01 Oct 2005, 08:34
Well after giving a careful thought i came to another conclusion which is different from my last post.

In case if we think that balanced diet contains more than 250 mg of vitamin C and we can do so because it is nowhere mentioned in the paragraph that it is less than 250 mg.

In that case choice E is wrong.
Choice D is wrong as last group who takes balanced diet (more than 250mg of vitamin C) also have less number of serious cases.

Choice C is wrong, see ranga post.

Choice B is strong statement as it is not fully able to eradicate the disease.

Choice A is correct in that case.

What is OA? I doubt whether this question is of ETS Quality?

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 25 Aug 2004
Posts: 170

Kudos [?]: 36 [0], given: 0

Location: MONTREAL

### Show Tags

01 Oct 2005, 12:08
A) The effectiveness of vitamin C in preventing serious cases of flu increases in direct proportion to the amount of vitamin C taken.

IF more Vitamin C is needed to reduce FLY, than the argument is weakened.

(B) Vitamin C is helpful in preventing disease.

Who cares what do vitamin C do in general ? OUT

(C) Doses of vitamin C that exceed the standard recommended daily allowance by 500 percent will reduce the incidence of serious cases of flu by 25 percent.

and? If they reduce by 25%, 30% or 50%, Who cares?

(D) Massive doses of vitamin C can help to prevent serious case of flu.

IF more vitamin C is needed to prevent serious case of Flu, than it is totaly true, than those who took 1500mg suffered less FLu than the others.

(E) A balanced diet contains less than 250 mg of vitamin C.
and? who cares how much Vitamin C contains a balanced diet ?

Kudos [?]: 36 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 09 Jul 2005
Posts: 589

Kudos [?]: 69 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

02 Oct 2005, 02:25
I would pick D

Kudos [?]: 69 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 07 Aug 2005
Posts: 102

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

### Show Tags

02 Oct 2005, 21:43
I would go for D

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

02 Oct 2005, 21:43

Go to page    1   2   3   4   5    Next  [ 81 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by