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.
02 Oct 2017, 20:51
Kudos
Bookmarks
C
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
5%
(low)
Question Stats:
85% (01:16) correct
15%
(01:29)
wrong
based on 573
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
In a study of the effect of radiation from nuclear weapons plants on people living in areas near them, researchers compared death rates in the areas near the plants with death rates in areas that had no such plants. Finding no difference in these rates, the researchers concluded that radiation from the nuclear weapons plants poses no health hazards to people living near them.
Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the researchers’ argument?
(A) Nuclear power plants were not included in the study.
(B) The areas studied had similar death rates before and after the nuclear weapons plants were built.
(C) Exposure to nuclear radiation can cause many serious diseases that do not necessarily result in death.
(D) Only a small number of areas have nuclear weapons plants.
(E) The researchers did not study the possible health hazards of radiation on people who were employed at the nuclear weapons plants if those employees did not live in the study areas.
Source: LSAT
Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the researchers’ argument?
(A) Nuclear power plants were not included in the study.
(B) The areas studied had similar death rates before and after the nuclear weapons plants were built.
(C) Exposure to nuclear radiation can cause many serious diseases that do not necessarily result in death.
(D) Only a small number of areas have nuclear weapons plants.
(E) The researchers did not study the possible health hazards of radiation on people who were employed at the nuclear weapons plants if those employees did not live in the study areas.
Source: LSAT
13 Apr 2021, 07:15
Kudos
Bookmarks
broall
OFFICIAL EXPLANATION
(A) No. Both the study and the conclusion are about nuclear weapons plants. So nuclear power plants are irrelevant.
(B) No. This would strengthen the researchers’ argument. If fact, it is very similar to the evidence they cite.
(C) Yes. Death is not the only negative influence on health. Perhaps the people living near the plants suffer from a host of ailments that are not life threatening but do negatively affect their health.
(D) No. That there is only a small number of plants is irrelevant. Though, the health hazard may appear only occasionally and therefore the small number of plants would represent an insufficient sample. However, there is a much better answer-choice.
(E) No. However, the argument would have been weakened if the researchers had not studied people who both worked at the plants and lived in the study areas since they have the greatest exposure.
19 Dec 2017, 05:44
Kudos
Bookmarks
broall
MGMAT explanation -->
No difference in death rates between areas with and without nuclear weapons plants---> Radiation from nuclear weapons plants poses no health hazards to people living near them
Whoa now! There is a lot of terrible argumentation going on here. Just because there is the same number of people dying does NOT mean that there are no health risks associated with nuclear weapon plants! In order to weaken this argument, I can see a few plans of attack: (1) We can show how there used to be a difference in death rates before the plants were installed - maybe the areas without weapons plants used to have 50% less people die than they do now; (2) We can attack the idea of having no health risks: people can still get sick and that would definitely be a health hazard! (3) What if these people are dying due to different things? Suppose that the people near the plants are dying due to radiation and the other people are dying due to old age? This would weaken the argument too!
(A) This simply does not matter. It is completely irrelevant because we are talking about the radiation from nuclear weapons plants exclusively.
(B) This is actually touching on one of our predictions but it does so in the wrong way. This actually strengthens the argument by showing that the same number of people are dying before and after the plants were installed. Maybe the plants don't have health hazards?
(C) This is a pretty good weakener; not perfect, but pretty good. This shows how, even though the death rates are given as evidence, the death rates are not indicative of the totality of health hazards that could result from radiation. This would show that maybe radiation does have some health hazards, just none that are really so serious that they lead to death. I like this one and I'll keep it for now.
(D) It doesn't matter how small the number of areas that have the plants are. We are trying to simply make a value judgement on the plants: are they dangerous or not? There could be one plant; there could be millions. It doesn't matter.
(E) This is oddly specific and it is fairly inconsequential. With the way that this answer choice is phrased, employees simply do not matter.
However, if the answer choice had said something about how there was a correlation between the employees working at the plant and an unusually high death rate then maybe that would be a much better weakener. It would thus show that radiation does pose some reason for concern if these employees are dying at alarming rates! It would also help to know if these employees only lived in areas that did NOT have a plant because then it would mean that their areas' numbers would be inflated. You can see that (E) is awfully close to this line of reasoning yet simply knowing that the researchers did not study this isn't enough to say that radiation probably does pose a health risk. Maybe if they studied these people then they would see that there actually was not any increase in sickness/death for employees at the plant. In which case, if an answer choice could easily strengthen or weaken, it probably isn't right.
