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.
04 Jul 2025, 10:09
Kudos
Bookmarks
Premise: Among adults over 75, 62 percent of those who suffered three or more falls in the last 12 months walked unsteadily because of joint stiffness and age-related muscle loss, not because of neurological decline.
Conclusion: clinicians should no longer regard a history of frequent falls as evidence that neurological degeneration is beginning.
Author is making bold conclusion by analyzing 62% of group. Rest 38% is still a significant number. he must be generalizing that since majority(>50%) falls are not due to neurological decline so all falls can be considered as not caused due to neurological decline.
(A) Assumes proving many falls have another cause shows falls never indicate neurological decline.
Yes this is general flaw that we have concluded.
(B) Ignores that stiff joints and early neurological decline could coexist in some patients.
The question is not about coexistence but it’s about whether frequent falls should still be treated as a neurological signal. This deviates from focus
(C) Takes for granted that “three or more falls” captures every clinically meaningful fall pattern.
The flaw is due to overgeneralization and not due to fall pattern. So this is not true
(D) Presumes the 62 percent figure is inherently large enough to overturn the diagnostic link.
Already by saying "among adults over 75" it is assuming a large group. So we need not redefine that to answer a flaw.
(E) Overlooks that participants may have been selected precisely because of musculoskeletal problems.
We are not concerned about how the data was captured but what the data implies. So this choice do not point out flaw
Hence A is correct
A very close and tricky answer choices!
Conclusion: clinicians should no longer regard a history of frequent falls as evidence that neurological degeneration is beginning.
Author is making bold conclusion by analyzing 62% of group. Rest 38% is still a significant number. he must be generalizing that since majority(>50%) falls are not due to neurological decline so all falls can be considered as not caused due to neurological decline.
(A) Assumes proving many falls have another cause shows falls never indicate neurological decline.
Yes this is general flaw that we have concluded.
(B) Ignores that stiff joints and early neurological decline could coexist in some patients.
The question is not about coexistence but it’s about whether frequent falls should still be treated as a neurological signal. This deviates from focus
(C) Takes for granted that “three or more falls” captures every clinically meaningful fall pattern.
The flaw is due to overgeneralization and not due to fall pattern. So this is not true
(D) Presumes the 62 percent figure is inherently large enough to overturn the diagnostic link.
Already by saying "among adults over 75" it is assuming a large group. So we need not redefine that to answer a flaw.
(E) Overlooks that participants may have been selected precisely because of musculoskeletal problems.
We are not concerned about how the data was captured but what the data implies. So this choice do not point out flaw
Hence A is correct
A very close and tricky answer choices!
Bunuel
MaxFabianKirchner
Joined: 02 Jun 2025
Last visit: 12 Jul 2025
Posts: 65
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 122
Status:26' Applicant
Location: Denmark
Concentration: Finance, International Business
Schools: ESSEC MiF '26 ESADE HEC Imperial LBS Oxford MFE '26 Sloan (MIT) NYU Stern NUS Bocconi IE'26
GPA: 4.0
WE:Other (Student)
Schools: ESSEC MiF '26 ESADE HEC Imperial LBS Oxford MFE '26 Sloan (MIT) NYU Stern NUS Bocconi IE'26
Posts: 65
Kudos:
62
04 Jul 2025, 10:13
Kudos
Bookmarks
The researcher's argument is that because 62 percent of frequent fallers have a non-neurological cause for their unsteadiness, clinicians should no longer consider frequent falls as evidence of neurological decline. The core of the argument is a statistical interpretation: the researcher sees that a majority of cases are explained by one cause and concludes that the symptom is no longer a useful indicator for another potential cause.
The primary vulnerability in this reasoning is that it ignores the potential significance of the remaining 38 percent of cases. The argument fails to consider the baseline rate of neurological decline in the general population of adults over 75 who do not fall frequently. If this baseline rate is very low, for example 2 percent, then a rate of 38 percent among frequent fallers would represent a significant increase, making frequent falls a strong diagnostic indicator, even if it is not the most common cause. The researcher's conclusion rests on the unsupported assumption that the 62 percent figure is, by itself, large enough to render the diagnostic link to neurological decline meaningless.
Option (D) correctly identifies this flaw. The argument presumes that the 62 percent figure is inherently large enough to invalidate the diagnostic connection without providing the necessary context to make that judgment. The other options are less accurate. (A) mischaracterizes the conclusion as more extreme than it is. (B) questions the premise by suggesting co-morbidity, but the argument’s flaw is in its reasoning, not necessarily its premise. (C) and (E) attack the study’s methodology rather than the logical leap from the premise to the conclusion.
The correct answer is (D).
The primary vulnerability in this reasoning is that it ignores the potential significance of the remaining 38 percent of cases. The argument fails to consider the baseline rate of neurological decline in the general population of adults over 75 who do not fall frequently. If this baseline rate is very low, for example 2 percent, then a rate of 38 percent among frequent fallers would represent a significant increase, making frequent falls a strong diagnostic indicator, even if it is not the most common cause. The researcher's conclusion rests on the unsupported assumption that the 62 percent figure is, by itself, large enough to render the diagnostic link to neurological decline meaningless.
Option (D) correctly identifies this flaw. The argument presumes that the 62 percent figure is inherently large enough to invalidate the diagnostic connection without providing the necessary context to make that judgment. The other options are less accurate. (A) mischaracterizes the conclusion as more extreme than it is. (B) questions the premise by suggesting co-morbidity, but the argument’s flaw is in its reasoning, not necessarily its premise. (C) and (E) attack the study’s methodology rather than the logical leap from the premise to the conclusion.
The correct answer is (D).
04 Jul 2025, 10:23
Kudos
Bookmarks
Medical Researcher: Among adults over 75, 62 percent of those who suffered three or more falls in the last 12 months walked unsteadily because of joint stiffness and age-related muscle loss, not because of neurological decline. Therefore, clinicians should no longer regard a history of frequent falls as evidence that neurological degeneration is beginning.
Conclusion: clinicians should no longer regard a history of frequent falls as evidence that neurological degeneration is beginning.
Potential reasoning issue: the remaining 38% is still high. The conclusion is jumping too big.
The researcher's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on which of the following grounds?
(A) Assumes proving many falls have another cause shows falls never indicate neurological decline.
Exactly what we initially thought. 38% may have neurological degeneration, which is important.
(B) Ignores that stiff joints and early neurological decline could coexist in some patients.
The issue is about correlation and statistics, not co-existence
(C) Takes for granted that “three or more falls” captures every clinically meaningful fall pattern.
irrelevant
(D) Presumes the 62 percent figure is inherently large enough to overturn the diagnostic link.
This is true, but I think "overturn" would not disregard neurological degeneration completely... so not exactly the right answer
(E) Overlooks that participants may have been selected precisely because of musculoskeletal problems.
This weakens but is not a logical reasoning issue
Answer: A
Conclusion: clinicians should no longer regard a history of frequent falls as evidence that neurological degeneration is beginning.
Potential reasoning issue: the remaining 38% is still high. The conclusion is jumping too big.
The researcher's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on which of the following grounds?
(A) Assumes proving many falls have another cause shows falls never indicate neurological decline.
Exactly what we initially thought. 38% may have neurological degeneration, which is important.
(B) Ignores that stiff joints and early neurological decline could coexist in some patients.
The issue is about correlation and statistics, not co-existence
(C) Takes for granted that “three or more falls” captures every clinically meaningful fall pattern.
irrelevant
(D) Presumes the 62 percent figure is inherently large enough to overturn the diagnostic link.
This is true, but I think "overturn" would not disregard neurological degeneration completely... so not exactly the right answer
(E) Overlooks that participants may have been selected precisely because of musculoskeletal problems.
This weakens but is not a logical reasoning issue
Answer: A
