Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Nov 1811:00 AM PST
-12:00 PM PST
Join us in a live GMAT practice session and solve 30 challenging GMAT questions with other test takers in timed conditions, covering GMAT Quant, Data Sufficiency, Data Insights, Reading Comprehension, and Critical Reasoning questions.
Nov 2211:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Do RC/MSR passages scare you? e-GMAT is conducting a masterclass to help you learn – Learn effective reading strategies Tackle difficult RC & MSR with confidence Excel in timed test environment- Nov 23
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease. 
Nov 2510:00 AM EST
-11:00 AM EST
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors.
10 Aug 2023, 12:00
Kudos
Bookmarks
C
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
65%
(hard)
Question Stats:
61% (01:50) correct
39%
(02:01)
wrong
based on 1764
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Epidemiologist: A study of residents in 116 of our nation's cities found that, on average, the incidence of cardiovascular disease was significantly higher in residents of the cities whose air was more polluted with soot particles. This shows that reducing soot pollution in those cities would lower the risk of cardiovascular disease for the residents.
Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the epidemiologist's argument?
A. A high proportion of residents in the cities whose air is more heavily polluted with soot particles have lifestyles that lower the risk of cardiovascular disease.
B. The study failed to measure the incidence of cardiovascular disease in rural areas where there is little or no soot pollution.
C. On average, among the 116 cities, the residents of cities whose air has less soot pollution have diets much less likely to cause cardiovascular disease.
D. After soot pollution in one city was dramatically reduced, the incidence of cardiovascular disease in that city remained above the national average.
E. Reducing soot pollution would also involve reducing several other forms of air pollution that contribute more significantly to cardiovascular disease.
Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the epidemiologist's argument?
A. A high proportion of residents in the cities whose air is more heavily polluted with soot particles have lifestyles that lower the risk of cardiovascular disease.
B. The study failed to measure the incidence of cardiovascular disease in rural areas where there is little or no soot pollution.
C. On average, among the 116 cities, the residents of cities whose air has less soot pollution have diets much less likely to cause cardiovascular disease.
D. After soot pollution in one city was dramatically reduced, the incidence of cardiovascular disease in that city remained above the national average.
E. Reducing soot pollution would also involve reducing several other forms of air pollution that contribute more significantly to cardiovascular disease.
11 Aug 2023, 03:58
Kudos
Bookmarks
Bunuel
Conclusion of the argument: Reducing soot pollution in those cities would lower the risk of cardiovascular disease for the residents.
Support Provided: A study of residents in 116 cities was conducted → Finding: On average, the incidence of cardiovascular disease was significantly higher in residents of the cities whose air was more polluted with soot particles.
Hence, the author concludes a causal relationship between the presence of the soot particles and the incidence of cardiovascular disease in the residents. We have to weaken the author's conclusion in the line of the reasoning provided-
Answer Choice Elimination
A. A high proportion of residents in the cities whose air is more heavily polluted with soot particles have lifestyles that lower the risk of cardiovascular disease.
This statement supports the conclusion as it removes an alternate cause. However, we need to weaken the conclusion of the argument. Hence, we can eliminate this option.
B. The study failed to measure the incidence of cardiovascular disease in rural areas where there is little or no soot pollution.
The author's argument and the conclusion that follows are related to those cities. Hence, the provided statement doesn't affect the conclusion.
The conclusion of the argument is -
This shows that reducing soot pollution in those cities would lower the risk of cardiovascular disease for the residents.
C. On average, among the 116 cities, the residents of cities whose air has less soot pollution have diets much less likely to cause cardiovascular disease.
This is a good one!
This statement gives us a piece of information to believe that the probably the presence of high soot pollution in the cities is a mere correlation with high incidences of cardiovascular diseases. This weakens the conclusion as the author believes that reducing soot pollution in those cities would lower the risk of cardiovascular disease for the residents while the actual cause could be the diets that tend to cause high incidences of cardiovascular diseases. We can keep this option.
D. After soot pollution in one city was dramatically reduced, the incidence of cardiovascular disease in that city remained above the national average.
This is a trap option.
The statement presents information that when the cause (soot pollution) was removed, the effect was still present. Hence, it sort of gives use a reason to not believe the conclusion of the argument. However, we need to be very careful in reading the argument. The argument presents a generalized observation -
"A study of residents in 116 of our nation's cities found that on average, the incidence of cardiovascular disease was significantly higher in residents of the cities"
Hence, the effect of each city may not be the same. We can eliminate D.
E. Reducing soot pollution would also involve reducing several other forms of air pollution that contribute more significantly to cardiovascular disease.
This strengthens the argument. If other pollutants that contribute more significantly to cardiovascular disease get reduced in the process, we are more likely to believe that reducing soot pollution in those cities would lower the risk of cardiovascular disease for the residents. Eliminate E.
Option C
17 Aug 2023, 04:49
Kudos
Bookmarks
Epidemiologist: A study of residents in 116 of our nation's cities found that, on average, the incidence of cardiovascular disease was significantly higher in residents of the cities whose air was more polluted with soot particles. This shows that reducing soot pollution in those cities would lower the risk of cardiovascular disease for the residents.
The conclusion of the argument is the following:
reducing soot pollution in those cities would lower the risk of cardiovascular disease for the residents
The support for the conclusion is the following premise:
A study of residents in 116 of our nation's cities found that, on average, the incidence of cardiovascular disease was significantly higher in residents of the cities whose air was more polluted with soot particles.
We see that the epidemiologist's reasoning is basically that there is some kind of causal connection between pollution of air with soot particles and the incidence of cardiovascular disease in a city.
The question asks which of the choices would most weaken the argument. So, the correct answer will show that, even though the premise is true, the epidemiologist's conclusion may not be correct.
A. A high proportion of residents in the cities whose air is more heavily polluted with soot particles have lifestyles that lower the risk of cardiovascular disease.
This choice strengthens the argument.
After all, if what this choice says is true, then we know that the lifestyles of the people in the cities in question are not causing them to experience cardiovascular disease. In fact, their lifestyles would be expected to reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease.
So, this choice serves to eliminate the possibility that people's lifestyles are causing the higher incidences of cardiovascular disease, making it more likely that the soot pollution is causing it.
A choice that strengthens the argument will never be the correct answer to a Weaken question.
Eliminate.
B. The study failed to measure the incidence of cardiovascular disease in rural areas where there is little or no soot pollution.
This choice tempts us to choose it as a weakener by seeming to suggest that the methodology of the study was lacking a key element.
So, what we need to notice is that, since the study involves a comparison of what goes on in cities with more and less soot pollution, it does not need to also measure the incidence of cardiovascular disease in rural areas. It has already provided reason to believe that soot pollution causes cardiovascular disease.
In fact, by including statistics from rural areas, the study might become less valid since any pattern seen in rural areas could be the result of the fact that they are rural rather than of the levels of soot pollution in those areas.
Eliminate.
C. On average, among the 116 cities, the residents of cities whose air has less soot pollution have diets much less likely to cause cardiovascular disease.
This choice weakens the argument.
After all, if what this choice says is true, then it could be that the reason the incidences of cardiovascular disease are lower in the cities with less soot pollution is that people in those cities have diets much less likely to cause cardiovascular disease.
In that case, the evidence that the incidence of cardiovascular disease was significantly higher in residents of the cities whose air was more polluted with soot particles does not effectively support the conclusion. After all, even though that premise is true, we have reason to doubt that the conclusion is correct since there's another variable, diet, that could be the true cause of the difference in incidences of cardiovascular disease.
Keep.
D. After soot pollution in one city was dramatically reduced, the incidence of cardiovascular disease in that city remained above the national average.
This choice does seem to weaken the argument because it seems to indicate that, even without soot pollution, the risk of cardiovascular disease remained high.
Notice, however, that the fact that the incidence of cardiovascular disease in one city remained "above the national average" does not tell us much. After al, the national average includes EVERYONE that lives in the country, including people who do not live in cities at all.
So, the implications of the information provided by this choice are not clear. After all, it could be that the incidence of cardiovascular disease in ALL cities is higher than average in a nation in which people may also live in rural and suburban areas.
Also, the fact that this outcome occurred in one city does not really change what we know since the evidence in support of the conclusion is that "ON AVERAGE, the incidence of cardiovascular disease was significantly higher in residents of the cities whose air was more polluted with soot particles." So, even though this one city does not fit the overall pattern, that overall pattern that supports the conclusion still exists.
Eliminate.
E. Reducing soot pollution would also involve reducing several other forms of air pollution that contribute more significantly to cardiovascular disease.
The conclusion is that "reducing soot pollution in those cities would lower the risk of cardiovascular disease for the residents."
So, if what this choice says is true, then we have even more reason to believe the conclusion since the recommended action, "reducing soot pollution," would likely reduce the presence of multiple causes of cardiovascular disease in addition to soot pollution.
So, this choice strengthens, rather than weakens, the case for the conclusion.
Eliminate.
The correct answer is (C).
The conclusion of the argument is the following:
reducing soot pollution in those cities would lower the risk of cardiovascular disease for the residents
The support for the conclusion is the following premise:
A study of residents in 116 of our nation's cities found that, on average, the incidence of cardiovascular disease was significantly higher in residents of the cities whose air was more polluted with soot particles.
We see that the epidemiologist's reasoning is basically that there is some kind of causal connection between pollution of air with soot particles and the incidence of cardiovascular disease in a city.
The question asks which of the choices would most weaken the argument. So, the correct answer will show that, even though the premise is true, the epidemiologist's conclusion may not be correct.
A. A high proportion of residents in the cities whose air is more heavily polluted with soot particles have lifestyles that lower the risk of cardiovascular disease.
This choice strengthens the argument.
After all, if what this choice says is true, then we know that the lifestyles of the people in the cities in question are not causing them to experience cardiovascular disease. In fact, their lifestyles would be expected to reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease.
So, this choice serves to eliminate the possibility that people's lifestyles are causing the higher incidences of cardiovascular disease, making it more likely that the soot pollution is causing it.
A choice that strengthens the argument will never be the correct answer to a Weaken question.
Eliminate.
B. The study failed to measure the incidence of cardiovascular disease in rural areas where there is little or no soot pollution.
This choice tempts us to choose it as a weakener by seeming to suggest that the methodology of the study was lacking a key element.
So, what we need to notice is that, since the study involves a comparison of what goes on in cities with more and less soot pollution, it does not need to also measure the incidence of cardiovascular disease in rural areas. It has already provided reason to believe that soot pollution causes cardiovascular disease.
In fact, by including statistics from rural areas, the study might become less valid since any pattern seen in rural areas could be the result of the fact that they are rural rather than of the levels of soot pollution in those areas.
Eliminate.
C. On average, among the 116 cities, the residents of cities whose air has less soot pollution have diets much less likely to cause cardiovascular disease.
This choice weakens the argument.
After all, if what this choice says is true, then it could be that the reason the incidences of cardiovascular disease are lower in the cities with less soot pollution is that people in those cities have diets much less likely to cause cardiovascular disease.
In that case, the evidence that the incidence of cardiovascular disease was significantly higher in residents of the cities whose air was more polluted with soot particles does not effectively support the conclusion. After all, even though that premise is true, we have reason to doubt that the conclusion is correct since there's another variable, diet, that could be the true cause of the difference in incidences of cardiovascular disease.
Keep.
D. After soot pollution in one city was dramatically reduced, the incidence of cardiovascular disease in that city remained above the national average.
This choice does seem to weaken the argument because it seems to indicate that, even without soot pollution, the risk of cardiovascular disease remained high.
Notice, however, that the fact that the incidence of cardiovascular disease in one city remained "above the national average" does not tell us much. After al, the national average includes EVERYONE that lives in the country, including people who do not live in cities at all.
So, the implications of the information provided by this choice are not clear. After all, it could be that the incidence of cardiovascular disease in ALL cities is higher than average in a nation in which people may also live in rural and suburban areas.
Also, the fact that this outcome occurred in one city does not really change what we know since the evidence in support of the conclusion is that "ON AVERAGE, the incidence of cardiovascular disease was significantly higher in residents of the cities whose air was more polluted with soot particles." So, even though this one city does not fit the overall pattern, that overall pattern that supports the conclusion still exists.
Eliminate.
E. Reducing soot pollution would also involve reducing several other forms of air pollution that contribute more significantly to cardiovascular disease.
The conclusion is that "reducing soot pollution in those cities would lower the risk of cardiovascular disease for the residents."
So, if what this choice says is true, then we have even more reason to believe the conclusion since the recommended action, "reducing soot pollution," would likely reduce the presence of multiple causes of cardiovascular disease in addition to soot pollution.
So, this choice strengthens, rather than weakens, the case for the conclusion.
Eliminate.
The correct answer is (C).
