Last visit was: 19 Nov 2025, 04:03 It is currently 19 Nov 2025, 04:03
Home
GMAT
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
Rewards
Chat
My Profile
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.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
Back to Forum
Create Topic
   1   2   3   4   
705-805 Level|   Weaken|         
User avatar
Prathu1221
User avatar
Joined: 19 Jun 2025
Last visit: 20 Jul 2025
Posts: 62
Own Kudos:
40
Given Kudos: 1
Posts: 62
Kudos: 40
GMAT Club Olympics 2025 (Day 5): Medical Researcher: A common early 04 Jul 2025, 23:00
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
There are 2 options which are close C and E. The reason is that 3 or more falls does not indicate a sure pattern that this is the sole reason of the problem. And E says that patients are selected based on muscoskeletal problems are did not test the neurological symptoms. But E is the more appropriate choice according to me. Because it isolates the reason and would contradict the other problem ie neorological symptom.
Bunuel
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.

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.
(B) Ignores that stiff joints and early neurological decline could coexist in some patients.
(C) Takes for granted that “three or more falls” captures every clinically meaningful fall pattern.
(D) Presumes the 62 percent figure is inherently large enough to overturn the diagnostic link.
(E) Overlooks that participants may have been selected precisely because of musculoskeletal problems.



 


This question was provided by GMAT Club
for the GMAT Club Olympics Competition

Win over $30,000 in prizes such as Courses, Tests, Private Tutoring, and more

 

Show more
User avatar
LunaticMaestro
User avatar
Joined: 02 Jul 2023
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 38
Own Kudos:
21
Given Kudos: 105
Posts: 38
Kudos: 21
GMAT Club Olympics 2025 (Day 5): Medical Researcher: A common early 04 Jul 2025, 23:39
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Author
- show stats those who fall (certain demographic) do so because of join-stiffness and age-rel muscle loss
- concludes that neuro decline should not (never) be associated with fall.

Flaw is that "never" part.

(A) Assumes proving many falls have another cause shows falls never indicate neurological decline.
> Contender: on the never indicate part.

(B) Ignores that stiff joints and early neurological decline could coexist in some patients.
> contender: it did so; but the conclusion is about fall and neuro decline. this options however is weak that observed strata did not observe neuro decline

(C) Takes for granted that “three or more falls” captures every clinically meaningful fall pattern.
> too broad scope

(D) Presumes the 62 percent figure is inherently large enough to overturn the diagnostic link.
> contender: what if 38% did have neuro decline linked to the fall.

(E) Overlooks that participants may have been selected precisely because of musculoskeletal problems.
> trying to question the experiment.
User avatar
SRIVISHUDDHA22
User avatar
Joined: 08 Jan 2025
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 88
Own Kudos:
55
 [1]
Given Kudos: 275
Location: India
Schools: ISB '26
GPA: 9
Products:
My Reviews GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Schools: ISB '26
Posts: 88
Kudos: 55
 [1]
GMAT Club Olympics 2025 (Day 5): Medical Researcher: A common early 04 Jul 2025, 23:40
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Bunuel
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.

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.
(B) Ignores that stiff joints and early neurological decline could coexist in some patients.
(C) Takes for granted that “three or more falls” captures every clinically meaningful fall pattern.
(D) Presumes the 62 percent figure is inherently large enough to overturn the diagnostic link.
(E) Overlooks that participants may have been selected precisely because of musculoskeletal problems.



Show more
Show Spoiler
Attachment:
GMAT-Club-Forum-g2x7x57u.png
GMAT-Club-Forum-g2x7x57u.png [ 427.18 KiB | Viewed 183 times ]
User avatar
Dipan0506
User avatar
Joined: 24 May 2021
Last visit: 17 Nov 2025
Posts: 72
Own Kudos:
14
Given Kudos: 3
Products:
GMAT Club Tests
Posts: 72
Kudos: 14
GMAT Club Olympics 2025 (Day 5): Medical Researcher: A common early 04 Jul 2025, 23:45
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
The medical researcher clearly concludes that those above 72 having three or more falls doesn’t necessarily mean they have neurological issues. This mainly happens due to joint stiffness and muscle. However, it ignores the fact that stiff joints and early neurological decline could co exist in some patients.
Assuming many falls dosen’t indicate properly about the number of falls. Three or more falls captures every clinical meaningful fall pattern is hypothetical. 62 percent is sufficient enough to overturn the diagonostic link. The sample size for research is restricted to musculoskeletal problems to come to a conclusion.Hence Point B is the answer.
User avatar
tgsankar10
User avatar
Joined: 27 Mar 2024
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 281
Own Kudos:
390
 [1]
Given Kudos: 83
Location: India
Posts: 281
Kudos: 390
 [1]
GMAT Club Olympics 2025 (Day 5): Medical Researcher: A common early 04 Jul 2025, 23:48
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
(A) Because in 62% of adults over 75 who had multiple falls happened due to joint stiffness and muscle loss, researcher suggests multiple falls will never cause neurological degeneration. This is overly generalizing an effect based on specific cause. This is the correct criticism to the argument. Correct

(B) There is nothing to support that the researcher ignores their coexistence. They are just pointing out the reasons for walking unsteadily. Eliminate

(C) It may question the definition of frequent falls but it does not question why it is not related to neurological degeneration. Eliminate

(D) 62% may not be significant enough, but still it does not explain why clinicians should no longer regard a history of frequent falls as evidence that neurological degeneration is beginning. Eliminate

(E) It may question the accuracy of the study, but its not criticizing the reasoning. Eliminate

Answer: A
User avatar
Tanabhumi
User avatar
Joined: 29 Apr 2025
Last visit: 29 Oct 2025
Posts: 21
Own Kudos:
13
Given Kudos: 31
Posts: 21
Kudos: 13
GMAT Club Olympics 2025 (Day 5): Medical Researcher: A common early 04 Jul 2025, 23:50
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
The data shows that the researchers seem to believe that 62% is enough to conclude that neurological factors aren’t the problem—but is it really? What about the remaining 38%? If all of those cases are actually due to neurological issues, that’s still a significant proportion. That’s why I chose option D.
User avatar
AD21
User avatar
Joined: 12 Jan 2024
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 38
Own Kudos:
23
Given Kudos: 31
Location: United States
Products:
GMAT Club Tests
Posts: 38
Kudos: 23
GMAT Club Olympics 2025 (Day 5): Medical Researcher: A common early 04 Jul 2025, 23:52
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
IMO Answer is B

Since this is a Logical Flaw question, we have to find the QUESTIONABLE ASSUMPTION of the argument and that would be - three or more falls happened because of joint stiffness and age-related muscle loss, not because of neurological decline.
So the author really completely ignores the possibility of neurological decline in addition to muscle loss leading to the falls.

(A) Assumes proving many falls have another cause shows falls never indicate neurological decline.-CLOSE CHOICE BUT INCORRECT- The author doesn't really prove that the falls happened because of age related muscle loss, he merely states it and also never is a strong word.

(B) Ignores that stiff joints and early neurological decline could coexist in some patients.-CORRECT

(C) Takes for granted that “three or more falls” captures every clinically meaningful fall pattern.- Incorrect

(D) Presumes the 62 percent figure is inherently large enough to overturn the diagnostic link -Incorrect

(E) Overlooks that participants may have been selected precisely because of musculoskeletal problems- Incorrect
User avatar
LucasH20
User avatar
Joined: 13 Apr 2023
Last visit: 31 Aug 2025
Posts: 52
Own Kudos:
35
 [1]
Given Kudos: 384
Posts: 52
Kudos: 35
 [1]
GMAT Club Olympics 2025 (Day 5): Medical Researcher: A common early 05 Jul 2025, 00:49
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
(A) Assumes proving many falls have another cause shows falls never indicate neurological decline.
Targets the flaw in logic within the researcher's conclusion. The researcher observes that a majority (62%) of frequent falls in a specific group are due to non-neurological causes. From this, they make an absolute leap to say that frequent falls should never be considered evidence of neurological decline. This is an overgeneralization. Even if 62% of falls have a different cause, it doesn't mean the remaining 38% (or other instances of frequent falls) couldn't still be linked to neurological issues.

(B) Ignores that stiff joints and early neurological decline could coexist in some patients.
The researcher's statement specifically focuses on the 62% of falls that were not due to neurological decline. The argument's primary flaw isn't about ignoring coexistence in the group studied, but rather about the sweeping conclusion drawn from the data.

(C) Takes for granted that “three or more falls” captures every clinically meaningful fall pattern.
The core of the researcher's argument isn't about the definition of frequency, but about the cause of those frequent falls and the subsequent diagnostic implication.

(D) Presumes the 62 percent figure is inherently large enough to overturn the diagnostic link.
The problem is the logical inference that because a significant percentage has one cause, all diagnostic links to another cause are invalidated. The vulnerability isn't just the magnitude, but the incorrect generalization derived from it.

(E) Overlooks that participants may have been selected precisely because of musculoskeletal problems.
If the study participants were pre-selected for musculoskeletal issues, it would indeed weaken the generalizability of the 62% finding. However, the question asks about the vulnerability of the researcher's argument as presented, which assumes the given data (62% figure) is valid.

Regards,
Lucas
Bunuel
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.

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.
(B) Ignores that stiff joints and early neurological decline could coexist in some patients.
(C) Takes for granted that “three or more falls” captures every clinically meaningful fall pattern.
(D) Presumes the 62 percent figure is inherently large enough to overturn the diagnostic link.
(E) Overlooks that participants may have been selected precisely because of musculoskeletal problems.



 


This question was provided by GMAT Club
for the GMAT Club Olympics Competition

Win over $30,000 in prizes such as Courses, Tests, Private Tutoring, and more

 

Show more
User avatar
HarshaBujji
User avatar
Joined: 29 Jun 2020
Last visit: 16 Nov 2025
Posts: 695
Own Kudos:
885
 [1]
Given Kudos: 247
Location: India
Products:
My Reviews
Posts: 695
Kudos: 885
 [1]
GMAT Club Olympics 2025 (Day 5): Medical Researcher: A common early 05 Jul 2025, 00:58
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Bunuel
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.

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.
(B) Ignores that stiff joints and early neurological decline could coexist in some patients.
(C) Takes for granted that “three or more falls” captures every clinically meaningful fall pattern.
(D) Presumes the 62 percent figure is inherently large enough to overturn the diagnostic link.
(E) Overlooks that participants may have been selected precisely because of musculoskeletal problems.



 


This question was provided by GMAT Club
for the GMAT Club Olympics Competition

Win over $30,000 in prizes such as Courses, Tests, Private Tutoring, and more

 

Show more
Researchers argument : Clinicians should no longer regard a history of frequent falls as evidence that neurological degeneration is beginning.

He supports this arguemnt based on some results that were discussed.

Pre-Thinking : I feel that the wording of the researcher is very strong, If somee results fail always true. No other possibility.


POE
(A) Assumes proving many falls have another cause shows falls never indicate neurological decline. Hmm, in line with the prethinking. Argument is a very strong worded.
(B) Ignores that stiff joints and early neurological decline could coexist in some patients. Contender, But A is better than B, This is just a possibility
(C) Takes for granted that “three or more falls” captures every clinically meaningful fall pattern. Irrelavant
(D) Presumes the 62 percent figure is inherently large enough to overturn the diagnostic link. This is a weaker, Not contender.
(E) Overlooks that participants may have been selected precisely because of musculoskeletal problems. Irrelavant

Hence IMO A
User avatar
kvaishvik24
User avatar
Joined: 31 Mar 2025
Last visit: 15 Oct 2025
Posts: 81
Own Kudos:
65
 [1]
Given Kudos: 16
Posts: 81
Kudos: 65
 [1]
GMAT Club Olympics 2025 (Day 5): Medical Researcher: A common early 05 Jul 2025, 01:20
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Pre thinking: Just because most cases have one cause doesn't mean we can completely rule out another important cause, especially one that might apply to approx 38% of patients

  • (A) Assumes proving many falls have another cause shows falls never indicate neurological decline.
    This accurately describes the flaw. The researcher finds that many (62%) falls have a muscle cause and incorrectly concludes that falls can no longer be an indicator for neurological issues. This ignores the 38% for whom neurological decline could still be the cause.
  • (B) Ignores that stiff joints and early neurological decline could coexist in some patients.
    The main error is in dismissing the 38% of cases, not in failing to account for an overlap of conditions within the 62%.
  • (C) Takes for granted that “three or more falls” captures every clinically meaningful fall pattern.
    This questions the study's definition, not the logical reasoning that follows from it.
  • (D) Presumes the 62 percent figure is inherently large enough to overturn the diagnostic link.
    The problem isn't just the size of the percentage, it's the absolute nature of the conclusion.
  • (E) Overlooks that participants may have been selected precisely because of musculoskeletal problems.
    This points to a potential sampling bias in the study which would weaken the premise itself.
Option A.
User avatar
sanya511
User avatar
Joined: 25 Oct 2024
Last visit: 10 Nov 2025
Posts: 100
Own Kudos:
52
 [1]
Given Kudos: 101
Location: India
Products:
My Reviews
Posts: 100
Kudos: 52
 [1]
GMAT Club Olympics 2025 (Day 5): Medical Researcher: A common early 05 Jul 2025, 01:33
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Medical Researcher: 62% of those who suffered 3+ falls because of physical issues not neurological decline. Hence, frequent falls should no longer be evidence that neurological degeneration is beginning.
A) the researchers argument assumes that just because many falls have a different cause that means falls never indicate neurological decline. This is the right option because the researcher just gives a blanket statement that clinicians should now no longer regard falls to be a sign of neurological decline as there is some other reason that can also cause falls.
B) Ignores that stiff joints and early neurological decline could coexist in some patients. This option talks about some patients, and this doesnt weaken his argument as, just because some people have both doesnt mean it can become an evidence of neurological degeneration.
C) Eliminate this, because we are critiquing the clinical standards in this option
D) These grounds make their argument slightly vulnerable but dont highlight the primary flaw.
E) this option just adds more variables to the research

Option A. (primarily because of the modifiers used.)
Bunuel
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.

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.
(B) Ignores that stiff joints and early neurological decline could coexist in some patients.
(C) Takes for granted that “three or more falls” captures every clinically meaningful fall pattern.
(D) Presumes the 62 percent figure is inherently large enough to overturn the diagnostic link.
(E) Overlooks that participants may have been selected precisely because of musculoskeletal problems.



 


This question was provided by GMAT Club
for the GMAT Club Olympics Competition

Win over $30,000 in prizes such as Courses, Tests, Private Tutoring, and more

 

Show more
User avatar
quynhanhtran
User avatar
Joined: 25 Jan 2018
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 38
Own Kudos:
28
 [1]
Given Kudos: 61
Posts: 38
Kudos: 28
 [1]
GMAT Club Olympics 2025 (Day 5): Medical Researcher: A common early 05 Jul 2025, 01:39
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Assumption: Because many falls are due to non-neurological causes, frequent falling is not a reliable sign of beginning neurological decline.

A. Assumes proving many falls have another cause shows falls never indicate neurological decline.
=> FLAWED because some or even many falls due to joint or muscle problems doesn’t mean neurological causes can be excluded altogether.

Answer: A
User avatar
bebu24
User avatar
Joined: 19 May 2025
Last visit: 21 Aug 2025
Posts: 61
Own Kudos:
35
Given Kudos: 12
Posts: 61
Kudos: 35
GMAT Club Olympics 2025 (Day 5): Medical Researcher: A common early 05 Jul 2025, 01:48
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
IMO, assumption in Option C makes the argument most vulnerable to criticism.

Premise: 3 or more falls among majority of adults over 75, in last 12 months was due to joint stiffness and age-related muscle loss and not due to neurological degeneration.

Conclusion: History of falls should not be regarded as an evidence for neurological degeneration.

Logical Gap: Assumes if 3 or more falls are not caused by neurological degeneration, then no falls can be caused by neurological degeneration.

Lets look at the options.
A. [TRAP] This does makes the reasercher's argument vulnerable to criticism. But the term "many falls" seem to be extreme. The argument is specific to 3 or more falls.
B. It may or may not be the case. So it can either criticize or strengthen the argument.
C. [Correct] It clearly identifies the logical gap of assuming "3 or more" as 'All".
D. Majority can be anything over 50%, so this cannot be the presumption.
E. This is outright irrelevant.

Bunuel
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.

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.
(B) Ignores that stiff joints and early neurological decline could coexist in some patients.
(C) Takes for granted that “three or more falls” captures every clinically meaningful fall pattern.
(D) Presumes the 62 percent figure is inherently large enough to overturn the diagnostic link.
(E) Overlooks that participants may have been selected precisely because of musculoskeletal problems.



 


This question was provided by GMAT Club
for the GMAT Club Olympics Competition

Win over $30,000 in prizes such as Courses, Tests, Private Tutoring, and more

 

Show more
User avatar
Brownieeee
User avatar
Joined: 24 Nov 2024
Last visit: 04 Aug 2025
Posts: 49
Own Kudos:
31
 [1]
Given Kudos: 17
Products:
GMAT Club Tests
Posts: 49
Kudos: 31
 [1]
GMAT Club Olympics 2025 (Day 5): Medical Researcher: A common early 05 Jul 2025, 02:41
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
The researcher's logic:
  • 62% of frequent fallers had joint/muscle problems (not brain problems)
  • Therefore: Doctors should NEVER use frequent falls to diagnose brain problems
The flaw - Option A:
This is like saying:
  • "62% of car accidents are caused by bad weather, not drunk driving"
  • "Therefore, police should never consider car accidents as evidence of drunk driving"
Why this is wrong: Just because MOST cases have one cause doesn't mean ALL cases have that cause.
  • 62% = joint/muscle problems
  • But what about the other 38%? Some of those could still be brain problems!
If 6 out of 10 frequent fallers have joint problems, that still leaves 4 out of 10 who might have brain problems. The researcher is throwing away a useful diagnostic tool completely.

(B) - About having both problems at once, but that's not the main logical flaw
(C) - About the definition of "frequent falls," but that's not the core issue
(D) - About whether 62% is "big enough," but the real problem is the logical leap
(E) - About study bias, but there's no evidence this happened

Answer: A - The researcher assumes that proving many falls have another cause means falls never indicate neurological decline.
User avatar
praneethkarempudi
User avatar
Joined: 23 Jul 2018
Last visit: 31 Oct 2025
Posts: 37
Own Kudos:
18
Given Kudos: 9
Location: India
Schools: ISB '26 IIMA '26 IIM
GMAT 1: 690 Q50 V34
GPA: 85%
Products:
My Reviews
Schools: ISB '26 IIMA '26 IIM
GMAT 1: 690 Q50 V34
Posts: 37
Kudos: 18
GMAT Club Olympics 2025 (Day 5): Medical Researcher: A common early 05 Jul 2025, 03:33
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
OPtion C and D are very specific and here the main concern is not on statistics, but it is with the logic that one case established wouldn't necessarily mean other cause do not exist.
which is clearly out by OPtion B
Bunuel
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.

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.
(B) Ignores that stiff joints and early neurological decline could coexist in some patients.
(C) Takes for granted that “three or more falls” captures every clinically meaningful fall pattern.
(D) Presumes the 62 percent figure is inherently large enough to overturn the diagnostic link.
(E) Overlooks that participants may have been selected precisely because of musculoskeletal problems.



 


This question was provided by GMAT Club
for the GMAT Club Olympics Competition

Win over $30,000 in prizes such as Courses, Tests, Private Tutoring, and more

 

Show more
User avatar
Gladiator59
User avatar
Joined: 16 Sep 2016
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 840
Own Kudos:
2,613
 [1]
Given Kudos: 260
Status:It always seems impossible until it's done.
GMAT 1: 740 Q50 V40
GMAT 2: 770 Q51 V42
Products:
My Reviews
GMAT 2: 770 Q51 V42
Posts: 840
Kudos: 2,613
 [1]
GMAT Club Olympics 2025 (Day 5): Medical Researcher: A common early 05 Jul 2025, 03:42
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
(A) Assumes proving many falls have another cause shows falls never indicate neurological decline.

This captures the core logical error. The researcher shows that 62% of cases had musculoskeletal causes, but then concludes that clinicians should "no longer regard" falls as evidence of neurological decline at all. This is a classic logical fallacy - proving that many instances have one cause doesn't prove that no instances have a different cause.

(B) Ignores that stiff joints and early neurological decline could coexist in some patients.


(C) Takes for granted that "three or more falls" captures every clinically meaningful fall pattern.


(D) Presumes the 62 percent figure is inherently large enough to overturn the diagnostic link.


(E) Overlooks that participants may have been selected precisely because of musculoskeletal problems.
This addresses potential selection bias but isn't the main logical flaw.

The answer is (A). The researcher commits the logical fallacy of assuming that because many falls have musculoskeletal causes, falls can never indicate neurological decline.
User avatar
Raajii
User avatar
Joined: 25 Apr 2024
Last visit: 17 Nov 2025
Posts: 13
Own Kudos:
3
Given Kudos: 17
Posts: 13
Kudos: 3
GMAT Club Olympics 2025 (Day 5): Medical Researcher: A common early 05 Jul 2025, 03:50
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
The question asks for a flaw in the reasoning that falls are not just neurologic degeneration but can be due to joint stiffness and age-related muscle loss. Let's evaluate the options one by one;
A. Assumes proving many falls have another cause shows falls never indicate neurological decline. Never is an extreme word, and we negate options with extreme words.
B. Ignores that stiff joints and early neurological decline could coexist in some patients. True. The reasoning given in the passage ignores the possibility that some patients could have both stiff joints and neurological decline can coexist in some patients.
C.Takes for granted that “three or more falls” captures every clinically meaningful fall pattern. Takes for granted is a distortion in the option
D. Presumes the 62 percent figure is inherently large enough to overturn the diagnostic link. 62% is a significant percentage.
E. Overlooks that participants may have been selected precisely because of musculoskeletal problems. The selection of the participants is not the central theme in the passage.

Bunuel
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.

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.
(B) Ignores that stiff joints and early neurological decline could coexist in some patients.
(C) Takes for granted that “three or more falls” captures every clinically meaningful fall pattern.
(D) Presumes the 62 percent figure is inherently large enough to overturn the diagnostic link.
(E) Overlooks that participants may have been selected precisely because of musculoskeletal problems.



 


This question was provided by GMAT Club
for the GMAT Club Olympics Competition

Win over $30,000 in prizes such as Courses, Tests, Private Tutoring, and more

 

Show more
User avatar
GarvitGoel
User avatar
Joined: 06 Aug 2024
Last visit: 17 Nov 2025
Posts: 69
Own Kudos:
54
 [1]
Posts: 69
Kudos: 54
 [1]
GMAT Club Olympics 2025 (Day 5): Medical Researcher: A common early 05 Jul 2025, 04:19
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Option A is the correct answer

Let's understand the passage and what we find to find in order to answer the question.

So the passage starts with the fact which the Medical Researcher presents i.e. "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" and on the bases of this fact he draws a conclusion that "clinicians should no longer regard a history of frequent falls as evidence that neurological degeneration is beginning". And now the question asks us on the bases of which information we can question the Researcher's argument.

So basically the premise, assumption and conclusion of this passage will be:

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.
Assumption: If majority of people of people above 75 who suffered have suffered 3 or more fall walked un­steadily because of joint stiffness and age-related muscle loss, not because of neurological decline then this must be true for all of the people above the age of 75.

Now let's check the options and see which one provides us with the gap in the assumption.

Option A: "Assumes proving many falls have another cause shows falls never indicate neurological decline". This option tells us the exact same assumption that the Reacher has used in order to reach his conclusion on which his his entire argument depends upon and as we all know that unlike the premise statement, an assumption is never 100% full proof information. So that's why the Reacher's argument is most vulnerable to the assumption which he has made that "if majority of people are make a issue due to a special condition/reason then it means all of the people facing that particular issue have be facing it due to the same reason only". Selected

Option B: "Ignores that stiff joints and early neurological decline could coexist in some patients". The fact which the Reacher provides tells that people above 75 are walking unsteadily because joint stiffness and age-related muscle loss, not because of neurological decline this clearly means that there is no overlap in the data so this is insufficient to answer the question. Eliminated

Option C: "Takes for granted that “three or more falls” captures every clinically meaningful fall pattern". Each and every type of reason is not what we are concerned about, we are concerned about the conclusion which the Researcher has reached based upon a problem which in majority of people resulted in unsteady walking condition, There might be hundred other reason because of which people are unable to walk steadily but in the passage it is only talking about two reason. So this is irrelevant. Eliminated

Option D: "Presumes the 62 percent figure is inherently large enough to overturn the diagnostic link". From the fact which the Researcher has present we can say that rest 38% of unable walking in people above 75 is cause by neurological degeneration and other issues and here we do not know which factory contributed how much to the issue and for that we again have to assume information which will be incorrect as the question type. Eliminated

Option E: "Overlooks that participants may have been selected precisely because of musculoskeletal problems". If you read the option properly it says that maybe the sample is biased but it is not giving us any confirmation whether the sample is biased or not, it is just saying 'maybe' which would mean that the sample could be biased and could not be biased as well. So this option again needs additional assumption to be made in order to reach the further information. Eliminated


Bunuel
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.

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.
(B) Ignores that stiff joints and early neurological decline could coexist in some patients.
(C) Takes for granted that “three or more falls” captures every clinically meaningful fall pattern.
(D) Presumes the 62 percent figure is inherently large enough to overturn the diagnostic link.
(E) Overlooks that participants may have been selected precisely because of musculoskeletal problems.



 


This question was provided by GMAT Club
for the GMAT Club Olympics Competition

Win over $30,000 in prizes such as Courses, Tests, Private Tutoring, and more

 

Show more
User avatar
Aarushi100
User avatar
Joined: 17 Jul 2024
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 56
Own Kudos:
44
 [1]
Given Kudos: 88
Products:
GMAT Club Tests
Posts: 56
Kudos: 44
 [1]
GMAT Club Olympics 2025 (Day 5): Medical Researcher: A common early 05 Jul 2025, 04:20
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Bunuel
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.

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.
(B) Ignores that stiff joints and early neurological decline could coexist in some patients.
(C) Takes for granted that “three or more falls” captures every clinically meaningful fall pattern.
(D) Presumes the 62 percent figure is inherently large enough to overturn the diagnostic link.
(E) Overlooks that participants may have been selected precisely because of musculoskeletal problems.



 


This question was provided by GMAT Club
for the GMAT Club Olympics Competition

Win over $30,000 in prizes such as Courses, Tests, Private Tutoring, and more

 

Show more

Adults > 75 years of age.
62% who suffered 3 or more falls walked unsteadily because of joint stiffness and age-related muscle loss.
Argument:
Frequent falls ---> No longer mean that neurological degeneration is beginning.
We have to find grounds on which the argument is most vulnerable to criticism.


Let's analyse each option:
(A) Assumes proving many falls have another cause shows falls never indicate neurological decline.
This can be a valid option. The argument assumes that just because the falls have other causes, neurological decline may not be one of them.
Hence, it is vulnerable to criticism over this point.
Correct.

(B) Ignores that stiff joints and early neurological decline could coexist in some patients.
It may coexist in some patients but this option ignores the other causes such as age related muscle loss and doesn't make a general statement. It only talks about some patients.
Incorrect.

(C) Takes for granted that “three or more falls” captures every clinically meaningful fall pattern.
Fall patterns aren't relevant to the discussion at hand.
Incorrect.

(D) Presumes the 62 percent figure is inherently large enough to overturn the diagnostic link.
Even if the 62% figure overturns the diagnostic link, it still doesn't provide any criticism to the argument at hand.
Incorrect.

(E) Overlooks that participants may have been selected precisely because of musculoskeletal problems.
Out of context of the discussion. Irrelevant.
Incorrect.

IMO Option A
User avatar
twinkle2311
User avatar
Joined: 05 Nov 2021
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 150
Own Kudos:
167
 [1]
Given Kudos: 10
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Real Estate
Schools: ISB '26 Wharton '26
GPA: 9.041
Schools: ISB '26 Wharton '26
Posts: 150
Kudos: 167
 [1]
GMAT Club Olympics 2025 (Day 5): Medical Researcher: A common early 05 Jul 2025, 04:50
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Pre-thinking :
The researcher finds that 62 % of frequent fallers have joint-and-muscle issues, not brain decline. But 38 % might still have neurological trouble.
So dismissing falls as a warning sign is an overreach. The researcher jumps from “many cases have another cause” to “therefore falls are never a useful clue.”

Let's check the options :
A. Exactly points out that leap. researcher assumes showing another common cause means falls never signal neurological decline. Keep
B. just says two causes might coexist. But that doesn’t attack the core leap. Eliminate
C. talks about the cutoff of three falls but doesn't talk about the main flaw. Eliminate
D. doesn't talk about total dismissal of any neurological link, but merely the size of the number. Eliminate
E. questions the sampling; possible but not the central logical gap. Eliminate

Answer: A
   1   2   3   4   
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7445 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
234 posts
miag
188 posts