Last visit was: 10 May 2026, 10:05

It is currently 10 May 2026, 10:05

Toolkit

Practice Tests

Critical Reasoning (CR)

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.

Go to My Error Log Learn more

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Back to Forum

Create Topic

Damaged nerves in the spinal cord do not regenerate themselves natural

1 2

agrasan

Joined: 18 Jan 2024

Last visit: 10 May 2026

Posts: 692

Own Kudos:

179

Given Kudos: 6,619

Location: India

Products:

Posts: 692

Kudos: 179

20 Feb 2026, 03:27

Kudos

Bookmarks

Thanks KarishmaB for your response. I am clear now.
Your replies on CR questions are always helpful and insightful to me.

KarishmaB

Yes, the argument doesn't say that there is any problem in providing that steady supply of antibodies. Perhaps some medicine taken orally everyday will provide that steady supply - we don't know. Until and unless we know that steady supply is an issue, we cannot say that it weakens the possibility of the solution working.

Think about it this way -
Claim: Process A is likely to be successful.

X: Process A needs continuous power supply.

Does it mean our process A will not be successful? No. We may have continuous power supply. Until and unless it is mentioned that we do not have continuous power supply, it is not a shortcoming of process A.

Legallyblond

Joined: 14 May 2024

Last visit: 10 May 2026

Posts: 74

Own Kudos:

Given Kudos: 1,657

Location: India

Posts: 74

Kudos: 6

15 Apr 2026, 04:36

Kudos

Bookmarks

so i want to know if my thinking process is correct i removed B - Out of scope, C - we are talking about spinal D - OOS, E- its actually telling us that the procedure will become norm..... am i correct? KarishmaB and GMATNinja

KarishmaB

Damaged nerves in the spinal cord do not regenerate themselves naturally, nor even under the spur of nerve-growth stimulants.
It is because of the presence of nerve-growth inhibitors in the spinal cord.
Antibodies that deactivate those inhibitors have now been developed.

Conclusion: Clearly, then, nerve repair will be a standard medical procedure in the foreseeable future.

Spinal cord has some growth inhibitors. They prevent regrowth of nerves. Antibodies that deactivate these inhibitors have been developed. We are concluding that nerve repair will become a standard procedure now.

We need to cast doubt that it will become a standard procedure now.

What if the antibodies that deactivate the inhibitors harm us in other worse ways? What if the growth inhibitors play some other crucial role in our bodies and deactivating them is harmful to us?
Then, nerve repair may not become standard procedure.

The only relevant options are (A) and (B).

(A) Prevention of the regeneration of damaged nerves is merely a by-product of the main function in the human body of the substances inhibiting nerve growth.

Correct. Inhibitors have a main function (they play some other role in our body). Inhibition of regeneration is just a by-product. If we deactivate these inhibitors, their main function will stop. It may impact our body in a much worse way. Hence, it casts doubt on the conclusion that it will become standard procedure.

(B) Certain nerve-growth stimulants have similar chemical structures to those of the antibodies against nerve-growth inhibitors.

Similar chemical structure does not mean "same". A small difference could be all that is needed to make antibodies work. So the fact that stimulants do not work does not imply that antibodies will not work either. Besides we are given that antibodies do deactivate those inhibitors. So we know that the antibodies work.

Answer (A)

KarishmaB

Tutor

Joined: 16 Oct 2010

Last visit: 09 May 2026

Posts: 16,455

Own Kudos:

79,577

[1]

Given Kudos: 485

Location: Pune, India

Products:

Expert

Expert reply

Posts: 16,455

Kudos: 79,577

[1]

15 Apr 2026, 07:31

Kudos

Bookmarks

E is not telling us that the procedure will become standard. It is saying that the procedure is long drawn (a negative of the procedure). But it does not make us question its effectiveness. It could still become a standard procedure used in many cases, if it is effective. It does not weaken that it will be a standard procedure. Some recovery processes are long - as long as they are effective, that's ok.

Legallyblond