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

It is currently 16 Jul 2018, 01:58

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

As far back as the 1950s, research has shown that adults who participa

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

Hide Tags

Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 08 Jul 2017
Posts: 17
Location: Greece
GPA: 3.31
Re: As far back as the 1950s, research has shown that adults who participa [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 27 Jun 2018, 10:17
A. The argument talks about prevention of respiratory illnesses. The "some" and the "hereditary" are enough to eliminate this option.
B. Besides the fact that the air pollution is greater, the aerobic exercise could still help to prevent respiratory illnesses. Eliminate B.
C. Since doctors suggest to limit or cease aerobic exercise, maybe aerobic exercise is not enough to prevent respiratory illnesses. But in this option we talk about people who are already affected, so, maybe it is not the right answer.
D. Heart diseases are out of scope. Eliminate D.
E. Less time for aerobic exercise has nothing to do with the argument. Out of Scope. Eliminate E.

Clearly, I can't find any reason to choose an option. Nevertheless, in exam mode I would choose C.
Top Contributor
1 KUDOS received
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
User avatar
B
Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Posts: 261
Re: As far back as the 1950s, research has shown that adults who participa [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 27 Jun 2018, 17:05
1
Top Contributor
Great discussion on this one. As of today this problem is less than a week old and we've made one change to the official version, changing "incidence" to "prevalence" (so that it's not quite about who CONTRACTS these illnesses but about who HAS them, which therefore makes the problem a whole lot tighter). It now reads:

As far back as the 1950s, research has shown that adults who participate in over 30 minutes of aerobic exercise at least three times a week have a significantly lower prevalence of respiratory illness than those who do not. In recent years, studies have consistently confirmed these same statistics. It can be concluded, therefore, that regular aerobic exercise can be helpful in preventing respiratory illness.

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

A. Some respiratory illnesses are hereditary and therefore minimally affected by lifestyle choices.

B. The amount of air pollution, a common cause of respiratory illness, has increased dramatically since the 1950s.

C. People with respiratory illnesses are generally told by doctors that they must limit or cease their aerobic exercise routines.

D. Recent studies have debunked the conventional wisdom that aerobic exercise is an effective preventer of heart disease.

E. The lengths of the average workday and commute have increased markedly since the 1950s, leaving the average person with less time for aerobic exercise.


With that...(C) is correct, as the real flaw here is one of correlation vs. causation. Is it that people have respiratory illnesses because they don't exercise, or that they don't exercise because they have respiratory illnesses? The conclusion says that exercise prevents illness, but why can't it be that illness prevents exercise?

With choice (A), note that "some respiratory illnesses are hereditary and therefore minimally affected by lifestyle choices" is soft in two spots: if only a couple illnesses are hereditary, the vast majority could still be prevented by exercise, and note that even the hereditary ones can still be affected (albeit minimally) by exercise. The conclusion is also soft, that exercise can be helpful in preventing these illnesses. (A) just isn't inconsistent with the conclusion: it allows for all illnesses to be at least somewhat affected ("can be helpful") and for many illnesses to be very affected (A only rules out some), so (A) leaves the conclusion unscathed.

And (D) just misses the scope of the conclusion, which is only about respiratory illnesses. Since heart disease is a different type of ailment altogether, new information about heart disease isn't necessarily applicable at all to respiratory illness.
_________________

Brian

Save $100 on live Veritas Prep GMAT Courses and Admissions Consulting

Enroll now. Pay later. Take advantage of Veritas Prep's flexible payment plan options.

Veritas Prep Reviews

Expert Post
Math Expert
User avatar
V
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Posts: 47012
Re: As far back as the 1950s, research has shown that adults who participa [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 29 Jun 2018, 04:16
Bunuel wrote:
As far back as the 1950s, research has shown that adults who participate in over 30 minutes of aerobic exercise at least three times a week have a significantly lower prevalence of respiratory illness than those who do not. In recent years, studies have consistently confirmed these same statistics. It can be concluded, therefore, that regular aerobic exercise can be helpful in preventing respiratory illness.

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


A. Some respiratory illnesses are hereditary and therefore minimally affected by lifestyle choices.
B. The amount of air pollution, a common cause of respiratory illness, has increased dramatically since the 1950s.
C. People with respiratory illnesses are generally told by doctors that they must limit or cease their aerobic exercise routines.
D. Recent studies have debunked the conventional wisdom that aerobic exercise is an effective preventer of heart disease.
E. The lengths of the average workday and commute have increased markedly since the 1950s, leaving the average person with less time for aerobic exercise.


VERITAS PREP OFFICIAL SOLUTION:




As you deconstruct this argument, you should notice a classic case of mistaking correlation (two things occur together) for causation (one causes the other). Here you're told that people who exercise regularly have a lower incidence of respiratory illness, and then the conclusion is that regular exercise helps prevent respiratory illness.

But why can't that be the other way around? Whenever a question is structured as "X and Y happen together, so X likely causes Y" you should be on the lookout for an answer choice that suggests that, actually, Y is the thing that causes X.

Answer choice (C) here supplies exactly that: if people who have respiratory illness are unable to exercise, that's a possible reason for the statistics (exercise and respiratory health occur together) to be true. So by providing an alternate explanation for the premises, (C) shows that the conclusion is not necessarily true. (C) is correct.

Among the other answer choices:

(A) is incorrect because the conclusion is so soft, that exercise "can be helpful in preventing" respiratory illness. Even if some respiratory illnesses cannot be prevented, choice (A) does not prohibit exercise from preventing other respiratory illnesses. Note also that (A) says that the hereditary respiratory illnesses are minimally affected by lifestyle choices. "Minimally affected" still allows for lifestyle choices to have an impact, which is consistent with "can be helpful" in preventing these illnesses.

(B) and (E) are wrong for similar reasons: they are each overruled by the facts, which state that exercise and a lack of respiratory illness have remained correlated over time, even if respiratory illness is increasing due to pollution (B) or people in general are exercising less (E). You still have facts from the argument that those who do find time to exercise have less respiratory illness than those who do not, so (B) and (E) are countered by the given information.

(D) misses the specific scope of the conclusion, which is only about respiratory illness. The fact that exercise doesn't prevent heart disease doesn't factor in to a discussion about respiratory issues. Because heart issues and respiratory issues are two completely different categories, (D) does not directly address the conclusion about respiratory issues.
_________________

New to the Math Forum?
Please read this: Ultimate GMAT Quantitative Megathread | All You Need for Quant | PLEASE READ AND FOLLOW: 12 Rules for Posting!!!

Resources:
GMAT Math Book | Triangles | Polygons | Coordinate Geometry | Factorials | Circles | Number Theory | Remainders; 8. Overlapping Sets | PDF of Math Book; 10. Remainders | GMAT Prep Software Analysis | SEVEN SAMURAI OF 2012 (BEST DISCUSSIONS) | Tricky questions from previous years.

Collection of Questions:
PS: 1. Tough and Tricky questions; 2. Hard questions; 3. Hard questions part 2; 4. Standard deviation; 5. Tough Problem Solving Questions With Solutions; 6. Probability and Combinations Questions With Solutions; 7 Tough and tricky exponents and roots questions; 8 12 Easy Pieces (or not?); 9 Bakers' Dozen; 10 Algebra set. ,11 Mixed Questions, 12 Fresh Meat

DS: 1. DS tough questions; 2. DS tough questions part 2; 3. DS tough questions part 3; 4. DS Standard deviation; 5. Inequalities; 6. 700+ GMAT Data Sufficiency Questions With Explanations; 7 Tough and tricky exponents and roots questions; 8 The Discreet Charm of the DS; 9 Devil's Dozen!!!; 10 Number Properties set., 11 New DS set.


What are GMAT Club Tests?
Extra-hard Quant Tests with Brilliant Analytics

Intern
Intern
User avatar
B
Status: Preparation phase
Joined: 11 Jun 2017
Posts: 30
Location: India
GMAT 1: 630 Q44 V33
GPA: 3.2
Re: As far back as the 1950s, research has shown that adults who participa [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 29 Jun 2018, 20:39
Option C states about treatment of disease,and the argument is about prevention.Does that not make A the better choice.
Verbal experts please help.
_________________

Thanks,
Ankit
Target Score:730+

If the post was useful,please send the kudos

Intern
Intern
User avatar
B
Joined: 01 Aug 2016
Posts: 35
Location: Thailand
Concentration: Accounting, Finance
GMAT 1: 630 Q48 V28
GPA: 3.82
WE: Accounting (Accounting)
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: As far back as the 1950s, research has shown that adults who participa [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 Jun 2018, 01:51
Bunuel wrote:
As far back as the 1950s, research has shown that adults who participate in over 30 minutes of aerobic exercise at least three times a week have a significantly lower prevalence of respiratory illness than those who do not. In recent years, studies have consistently confirmed these same statistics. It can be concluded, therefore, that regular aerobic exercise can be helpful in preventing respiratory illness.

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


A. Some respiratory illnesses are hereditary and therefore minimally affected by lifestyle choices.
B. The amount of air pollution, a common cause of respiratory illness, has increased dramatically since the 1950s.
C. People with respiratory illnesses are generally told by doctors that they must limit or cease their aerobic exercise routines.
D. Recent studies have debunked the conventional wisdom that aerobic exercise is an effective preventer of heart disease.
E. The lengths of the average workday and commute have increased markedly since the 1950s, leaving the average person with less time for aerobic exercise.


Premise - In 1950s, adults who regularly exercise have a lower respiratory illness than those who do not
Premise - In recent years, studies have confirmed these same statistics.
Conclusion - Regular exercise prevents respiratory illness

A. Some respiratory illnesses are hereditary and therefore minimally affected by lifestyle choices. --> minimal affected but doesn't mention that lifestyle will prevent those risks. Out
B. The amount of air pollution, a common cause of respiratory illness, has increased dramatically since the 1950s. ---> We don't know any relationship between air pollution and respiratory illnesses. Out
C. People with respiratory illnesses are generally told by doctors that they must limit or cease their aerobic exercise routines. ---> Exercise can worsen the respiratory illnesses? Not prevent the illness? I will keep this one first.
D. Recent studies have debunked the conventional wisdom that aerobic exercise is an effective preventer of heart disease. ---> Irrelevant we're talking about respiratory illnesses. Exercise might still prevent respiratory illnesses. Out
E. The lengths of the average workday and commute have increased markedly since the 1950s, leaving the average person with less time for aerobic exercise. ---> but the premise shows that recently people still spend about the same amount of time as they did in 1950's. Ok so let think of it mathematically. in 1950's people spent >30 minutes e.g. 60 minutes. How about now prople only spend around 55 minutes? We have no information about the correlation between the length of exercising and the effect on respiratory illnesses. Out

So I got only C. left even I don't really like it but it seem the most relevant to the question.
Re: As far back as the 1950s, research has shown that adults who participa   [#permalink] 30 Jun 2018, 01:51

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 25 posts ] 

Display posts from previous: Sort by

As far back as the 1950s, research has shown that adults who participa

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

Events & Promotions

PREV
NEXT


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

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

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