A survey was recently conducted among ferry passengers on the North

D is correct because it says if they had not taken the medication, they would have more serious problems.

It weakens the conclusion that those medications are just a waste of money. Since they took it, hence they got less severe problems.

I hope that makes sense.

A survey was recently conducted among ferry passengers on the North Sea. Among the results was this: more of those who had taken anti-seasickness medication before their trip reported symptoms of seasickness than those who had not taken such medication. It is clear, then that despite claims by drug companies that clinical tests show the contrary, people would be better off not taking anti-seasickness medications.

Which one of the following, if true, would most weaken the conclusion above?

Conclusion - despite claims by drug companies that clinical tests show the contrary, people would be better off not taking anti-seasickness medications.
Pre-thinking -- what if the group of people who took the medication would have been worse without it

(A) Given rough enough weather, most ferry passengers will have some symptoms of seasickness. -- Irrelevant
(B) The clinical tests reported by the drug companies were conducted by the drug companies’ staffs. -- Irrelevant
(C) People who do not take anti-seasickness medication are just as likely to respond to a survey on seasickness as people who do. -- Incorrect -- so the survey is proper
(D) The seasickness symptoms of the people who took anti-seasickness medication would have been more severe had they not taken the medication.- Correct
(E) People who have spent money on anti-seasickness medication are less likely to admit symptoms of seasickness than those who have not. -- Irrelevant -- it tells that number of people who have taken anti-seasickness medication and have symptoms are more that survey suggests

Answer D
If we change option C to People who do not take anti-seasickness medication are less likely to respond to a survey on seasickness as people who do -- Will this too be a valid weakener ?

AjiteshArun , mikemcgarry , VeritasPrepKarishma , sayantanc2k , GMATNinja , ChiranjeevSingh , other experts -- please enlighten .

Yes, this new option will give us a reason to doubt the survey itself. The smaller number could then be explained by the survey's underreporting.

pikolo2510 nightblade354 generis VeritasPrepKarishma GMATNinja

Conclusion: despite claims by drug companies that clinical tests show the contrary, people would be better off not taking anti-seasickness medicines.

Premise: Survey results: more of people who had taken anti-seasickness medicines before their trip reported symptoms of seasickness than those who had not taken such medication.


In a typical weaken question,
1. I can bring outside information that is relevant to the argument.
2. I have to treat the answer options as premise and see if my belief on author's conclusion is weakened.

As per choice the mild language used by author gels so beautifully to point out that alternate cause ie rough weather
could attribute to sickness of most people who got sick during trip.

Can you help to understand why this choice does not weaken the argument?

Why would this weaken the conclusion? You want to show that the medication made passengers better off in some way. This doesn't do that. It puts everyone in the same boat, literally. If no one is helped, how would this weaken the statement that you should not take the medicine?

Does this help?

Posted from my mobile device

Thanks nightblade354 for your two cents.

Can you share your detailed approach while solving this?
Is this kind of 'double negative' question ?

To disprove: people would be better off not taking anti-seasickness medicines.
is same as:
To prove: people would get more sick if they had not taken medicines.

I took the argument as causal:
Cause: Taking medicines by people who suffer from seasickness before trip
Effect: No major improvement in health than those who did not took medicines.

How do you weaken a causal argument:
By showing alternate cause (bad weather) for the same effect?
Note that I have to link bad weather as an attribute to bad health of people since it is a premise in answer choice.
(Note if true in question stem.)

adkikani,

The conclusion states the medicine does not work. We want to prove it does work in some way, as we are asked to weaken the conclusion that it doesn't work. How do we do this? We look for some benefit. (A) strengthens the argument. It says nothing will work in rough weather. But where is rough weather in our premise? It isn't there, so you don't need to link it.

Does this help?

Posted from my mobile device

(D) clearly challenges the highlighted part of the stimulus that anti-seasickness medication resulted in less severity as such it weakens the claim of the Clinical Tests.

Considering the enormity of the seasickness, people consuming the drug would be better off than the ones not consuming it.

Hi @utkarshpathak I might be late to respond, but to answer in simple terms arguments says people are better off not taking medicine as it does not have any impact, though D states that, had people not taken any medicine, their symptoms would have been worse, now this shows that the medicine works, hence it weakens the conclusion.

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.