It is currently 23 Oct 2017, 12:07

### 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

# CR: 2,500 people

Author Message
SVP
Joined: 03 Feb 2003
Posts: 1603

Kudos [?]: 304 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

14 Oct 2003, 07:03
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

22% (00:29) correct 78% (01:56) wrong based on 10 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

8. Of 2,500 people who survived a first heart attack, those who did not smoke had their first heart attack at a median age of 62. However, of those 2,500 people who smoked two packs of cigarettes a day had their first heart attack at a median age of 51. On the basis of this information, it can be concluded that nonsmokers tend to have a first heart attack eleven years later than do people who smoke two packs of cigarettes a day.

The conclusion is incorrectly drawn from the information given because this information does not include

(A) the relative seventy of heart attacks suffered by smokers and nonsmokers
(B) the nature of the different medical treatments that smokers and nonsmokers received after they had survived their first heart attack
(C) how many of the 2,500 people studied suffered a second heart attack
(D) the earliest age at which a person who smoked two packs a day had his or her first heart attack
(E) data on people who did not survive a first heart attack

Kudos [?]: 304 [0], given: 0

Intern
Joined: 16 Sep 2003
Posts: 21

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

Location: Buffalo (NY)

### Show Tags

14 Oct 2003, 07:13
i feel B is the answer.....
reasons: at first i ruled out B , but if u read carefully, it says the nature of treatment , which might include abstinence from smoking..... so i guess if that was included it would have directly pointed out smoking as one of the causes.....

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

Intern
Joined: 10 Oct 2003
Posts: 29

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

Location: Cambridge, MA USA

### Show Tags

14 Oct 2003, 10:13
I believe the best answer is E.

Remember, you must refute the conclusion, which says that nonsmokers tend to have a first heart attack eleven years later than do people who smoke two packs of cigarettes a day. This implies all nonsmokers.

Now look at the evidence. Both pieces deal with survivers of first heart attacks. Once sentence talks about non-smokers having their first heart attack at 62 and the other piece of evidences talks about smokers having their heart attacks at 51.

What's missing between the evidence and the conclusion? The conclusion deals with all people whether they survive or not, but the evidence deals with only those that survive.

Formulate your answer based on this. What if there were 1,000,000 non-smokers who had their first heart attack at age 15 and died? That doesn't violate any of the evidence, but it definitely casts doubt on the conclusion.

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

Intern
Joined: 16 Sep 2003
Posts: 21

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

Location: Buffalo (NY)

### Show Tags

14 Oct 2003, 10:48
[/quote]I believe the best answer is E.

Remember, you must refute the conclusion, which says that nonsmokers tend to have a first heart attack eleven years later than do people who smoke two packs of cigarettes a day. This implies all nonsmokers.

Now look at the evidence. Both pieces deal with survivers of first heart attacks. Once sentence talks about non-smokers having their first heart attack at 62 and the other piece of evidences talks about smokers having their heart attacks at 51.

What's missing between the evidence and the conclusion? The conclusion deals with all people whether they survive or not, but the evidence deals with only those that survive.

Formulate your answer based on this. What if there were 1,000,000 non-smokers who had their first heart attack at age 15 and died? That doesn't violate any of the evidence, but it definitely casts doubt on the conclusion.

I do agree with hota..... i did not read the last line properly...

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

SVP
Joined: 03 Feb 2003
Posts: 1603

Kudos [?]: 304 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

14 Oct 2003, 22:25
hota wrote:
I believe the best answer is E.

Remember, you must refute the conclusion, which says that nonsmokers tend to have a first heart attack eleven years later than do people who smoke two packs of cigarettes a day. This implies all nonsmokers.

Now look at the evidence. Both pieces deal with survivers of first heart attacks. Once sentence talks about non-smokers having their first heart attack at 62 and the other piece of evidences talks about smokers having their heart attacks at 51.

What's missing between the evidence and the conclusion? The conclusion deals with all people whether they survive or not, but the evidence deals with only those that survive.

Formulate your answer based on this. What if there were 1,000,000 non-smokers who had their first heart attack at age 15 and died? That doesn't violate any of the evidence, but it definitely casts doubt on the conclusion.

Your reasoning is ideal! E is correct.

Kudos [?]: 304 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 03 Mar 2010
Posts: 422

Kudos [?]: 361 [0], given: 22

Schools: Simon '16 (M)

### Show Tags

28 Sep 2011, 11:10
I went for D on this one. Re-reading reveals E is correct.
_________________

My dad once said to me: Son, nothing succeeds like success.

Kudos [?]: 361 [0], given: 22

Manager
Status: Retaking next month
Affiliations: None
Joined: 05 Mar 2011
Posts: 211

Kudos [?]: 177 [0], given: 42

Location: India
Concentration: Marketing, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 570 Q42 V27
GPA: 3.01
WE: Sales (Manufacturing)

### Show Tags

29 Sep 2011, 01:11
Problem with data is that it does not includes people who did not survived the first heart attack . We should actively look for this in answer choices.
1) Unrelated
2) Medical treatment .Where did dat came from???
3) Second heart attack. Unrelated
4) We are considered with median not with the earliest age.
5) Exactly what we are looking for.

Kudos [?]: 177 [0], given: 42

Re: CR: 2,500 people   [#permalink] 29 Sep 2011, 01:11
Display posts from previous: Sort by