GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

It is currently 19 Oct 2018, 23:26

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.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Many scientists of the 1940s predicted that, new, exceptionally potent

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Manager
Manager
avatar
G
Joined: 27 Dec 2016
Posts: 230
Many scientists of the 1940s predicted that, new, exceptionally potent  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post Updated on: 24 Sep 2018, 03:25
2
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  5% (low)

Question Stats:

86% (01:15) correct 14% (01:24) wrong based on 105 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

Many scientists of the 1940s predicted that, new, exceptionally potent antibiotics would soon revolutionize the entire medical field. Patients would be given large dosages of these antibiotics, which would attack and kill harmful bacteria in the body, making the patients stronger as a result.

Which of the following, if true, best describes a reasoning error in the scientists’ prediction?


(A) To achieve the proper dosage requirements, several rounds of antibiotics would likely be necessary.

(B) In the 1940s, antibiotics had only recently been discovered.

(C) Some patients respond more quickly than others to strong antibiotics.

(D) Strong antibiotics act on all bacteria in the body in the same manner, including beneficial bacteria critical to human health.

(E) Some of the proposed antibiotic treatments would be quite expensive to develop.

Originally posted by csaluja on 05 Aug 2017, 17:46.
Last edited by Bunuel on 24 Sep 2018, 03:25, edited 1 time in total.
Renamed the topic and edited the question.
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
User avatar
G
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4493
Re: Many scientists of the 1940s predicted that, new, exceptionally potent  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 07 Aug 2017, 17:00
2
csaluja wrote:
Many scientists of the 1940s predicted that, new, exceptionally potent antibiotics would soon revolutionize the entire medical field. Patients would be given large dosages of these antibiotics, which would attack and kill harmful bacteria in the body, making the patients stronger as a result.

Which of the following, if true, best describes a reasoning error in the scientists’ prediction?

(A) To achieve the proper dosage requirements, several rounds of antibiotics would likely be necessary.
(B) In the 1940s, antibiotics had only recently been discovered.
(C) Some patients respond more quickly than others to strong antibiotics.
(D) Strong antibiotics act on all bacteria in the body in the same manner, including beneficial bacteria critical to human health.
(E) Some of the proposed antibiotic treatments would be quite expensive to develop.

Dear csaluja,

I'm happy to respond. :-)

This appear to be a PowerScore question, appearing on p. 145 of this guide. I like this question: it has the "real world" feel of the GMAT CR.

The doctors thought these massive antibiotic doses would be the ticket to universal health, and we want to find the flaw. Why would massive doses of these nifty new powerful antibiotics not bring uniform benefit to all people?

(A) To achieve the proper dosage requirements, several rounds of antibiotics would likely be necessary.
Hmm. So what if it takes 3-4 doses? If the doctors came to us and said, "Take 3-4 shots over some period of time and then you'll never be sick again," that would still be quite revolutionary! This doesn't not really weaken the argument. This is incorrect.

(B) In the 1940s, antibiotics had only recently been discovered.
How is this relevant. If something is new, maybe there were some side effects that weren't discovered until later, maybe that would change the plan. This could be understood as introducing uncertainty, but it doesn't introduce a clear and certain weakener. This is incorrect.

(C) Some patients respond more quickly than others to strong antibiotics.
So what? This just means some people would get to universal health a little faster than others--that still would be a revolution. This does not weaken the argument. This is incorrect.

(D) Strong antibiotics act on all bacteria in the body in the same manner, including beneficial bacteria critical to human health.
Aha! If the antibiotics kill both harmful bacteria and beneficial bacteria, then it sounds as if these antibiotics are going to do both harm and good. The result will not be a utopia of universal health! This is a promising answer choice.

(E) Some of the proposed antibiotic treatments would be quite expensive to develop.
The argument does not discuss economics at all. If these antibiotics really could bring about universal health, someone somehow would find a way to pay for them. This is irrelevant and incorrect.

The only possible correct answer is OA = (D). This is a very well written question.

BTW, some non-scientists think that all bacteria are germs and are bad. In fact, for any healthy human being, there are about as many bacteria cells in our body as our own cells, and the most of these bacteria are helpful: ultimately, we would not survive without them! The "bad" bacteria that make us sick are a very small segment of the bacteria population.

Does this make sense?
Mike :-)
_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep


Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire. — William Butler Yeats (1865 – 1939)

Non-Human User
User avatar
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 3221
Premium Member
Re: Many scientists of the 1940s predicted that, new, exceptionally potent  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Sep 2018, 06:20
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
_________________

-
April 2018: New Forum dedicated to Verbal Strategies, Guides, and Resources

GMAT Club Bot
Re: Many scientists of the 1940s predicted that, new, exceptionally potent &nbs [#permalink] 22 Sep 2018, 06:20
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Many scientists of the 1940s predicted that, new, exceptionally potent

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


Copyright

GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.