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 2007:30 AM PST
-08:30 AM PST
Learn what truly sets the UC Riverside MBA apart and how it helps in your professional growth
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.
05 Jul 2025, 04:51
Kudos
Bookmarks
(A) Assumes proving many falls have another cause shows falls never indicate neurological decline.
The researcher assumes that because many falls have non-neurological causes, falls never indicate neurological decline. This is an overgeneralization. The data doesn't rule out neurological causes in some cases. CORRECT
(B) Ignores that stiff joints and early neurological decline could coexist in some patients.
While they could coexist, the argument doesn't necessarily ignore this. It just focuses on the primary cause in the 62%.
(C) Takes for granted that “three or more falls” captures every clinically meaningful fall pattern.
The argument doesn't rely on "three or more falls" being the only meaningful pattern.
(D) Presumes the 62 percent figure is inherently large enough to overturn the diagnostic link.
The 62% figure might not be large enough to overturn the diagnostic link entirely (since 38% could still involve neurological issues), but this is secondary to the logical flaw of the argument.
(E) Overlooks that participants may have been selected precisely because of musculoskeletal problems.
There's no evidence in the argument that participants were selected this way.
IMO A
The researcher assumes that because many falls have non-neurological causes, falls never indicate neurological decline. This is an overgeneralization. The data doesn't rule out neurological causes in some cases. CORRECT
(B) Ignores that stiff joints and early neurological decline could coexist in some patients.
While they could coexist, the argument doesn't necessarily ignore this. It just focuses on the primary cause in the 62%.
(C) Takes for granted that “three or more falls” captures every clinically meaningful fall pattern.
The argument doesn't rely on "three or more falls" being the only meaningful pattern.
(D) Presumes the 62 percent figure is inherently large enough to overturn the diagnostic link.
The 62% figure might not be large enough to overturn the diagnostic link entirely (since 38% could still involve neurological issues), but this is secondary to the logical flaw of the argument.
(E) Overlooks that participants may have been selected precisely because of musculoskeletal problems.
There's no evidence in the argument that participants were selected this way.
IMO A
SSWTtoKellogg
Joined: 06 Mar 2024
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 57
Given Kudos: 14
Location: India
Schools: Kellogg INSEAD Jan '26 Ross '26 Duke '26 Darden '26 Anderson '26 Tepper '26 Johnson '26 Kelley '26
GMAT Focus 1: 595 Q83 V78 DI77 
GMAT Focus 2: 645 Q87 V79 DI79
GPA: 8.8
Products:
Schools: Kellogg INSEAD Jan '26 Ross '26 Duke '26 Darden '26 Anderson '26 Tepper '26 Johnson '26 Kelley '26
GMAT Focus 2: 645 Q87 V79 DI79
Posts: 57
05 Jul 2025, 05:07
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.
The researcher's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on which of the following grounds?
We need to find a option which would say too narrow understanding.
(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.
Answer should be A or B, B is given in premise, hence A.
The researcher's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on which of the following grounds?
We need to find a option which would say too narrow understanding.
(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.
Answer should be A or B, B is given in premise, hence A.
05 Jul 2025, 05:32
Kudos
Bookmarks
D. The argument concludes that because 62 percent of the adults over 75 walked unsteadily because of joint stiffness, the clinicians shouldnt regard frequent falls with neurological degeneration, (lets call this term ND).
Now, we need to weaken this up, to do that there , look for an answer choice which add up to your belief that maybe there is some other factor involved, or is this percent no, sufficient to conclude, something on those terms.
Going via the answer choices, I was down to A, B, D.
But since we need to an answer choice which is most vulnerable to criticism, it shoud be D, it targets it very clear, A maybe ignored because NEVER INDICATE ND,...this isnt actually the conclusion , its we should stop associating falling frequent with ND.
For B, it can be said that it isnt attacking the conclusion really, so what, they can co exist together. Doesnt weaken our argument.
Now, we need to weaken this up, to do that there , look for an answer choice which add up to your belief that maybe there is some other factor involved, or is this percent no, sufficient to conclude, something on those terms.
Going via the answer choices, I was down to A, B, D.
But since we need to an answer choice which is most vulnerable to criticism, it shoud be D, it targets it very clear, A maybe ignored because NEVER INDICATE ND,...this isnt actually the conclusion , its we should stop associating falling frequent with ND.
For B, it can be said that it isnt attacking the conclusion really, so what, they can co exist together. Doesnt weaken our argument.
Bunuel
