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

It is currently 21 Sep 2018, 14:47

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

Medical Investigator: "Podiatrists initially assumed that Meyer's Rash

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

Hide Tags

Retired Moderator
User avatar
Joined: 06 Jul 2014
Posts: 1244
Location: Ukraine
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Technology
GMAT 1: 660 Q48 V33
GMAT 2: 740 Q50 V40
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member
Medical Investigator: "Podiatrists initially assumed that Meyer's Rash  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Aug 2015, 16:57
3
11
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  95% (hard)

Question Stats:

40% (01:16) correct 60% (01:20) wrong based on 737 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

Medical Investigator: "Podiatrists initially assumed that Meyer's Rash, an itchy rash between the toes, was a fungal infection similar to athlete's foot. At first, only Dr. Pannikar argued that Meyer's Rash was viral in nature. All anti-fungal medications proved utterly ineffective in addressing Meyer's Rash. Now, recent antibody studies seem to suggest, quite surprisingly, that Meyer's Rash is caused by a virus."

In the medical investigator's argument, the portion in boldface plays which of the following roles?

A) It presents an explanation that the argument concludes is correct.
B) It introduces a judgment that the argument opposes.
C) It is a finding the argument seeks to explain.
D) It provides evidence in support of the main conclusion of the argument.
E) It is the main conclusion of the argument.

_________________

Simple way to always control time during the quant part.
How to solve main idea questions without full understanding of RC.
660 (Q48, V33) - unpleasant surprise
740 (Q50, V40, IR3) - anti-debrief ;)

Current Student
avatar
Joined: 25 Jun 2014
Posts: 42
GMAT 1: 690 Q48 V37
WE: Operations (Computer Software)
Re: Medical Investigator: "Podiatrists initially assumed that Meyer's Rash  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Aug 2015, 23:03
Please highlight the portion in boldface.
_________________

Did I Help You..If Yes.. Then Kudos Please.. :-)

Director
Director
avatar
G
Joined: 21 May 2013
Posts: 648
CAT Tests
Re: Medical Investigator: "Podiatrists initially assumed that Meyer's Rash  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Aug 2015, 01:36
Harley1980 wrote:
Medical Investigator: "Podiatrists initially assumed that Meyer's Rash, an itchy rash between the toes, was a fungal infection similar to athlete's foot. At first, only Dr. Pannikar argued that Meyer's Rash was viral in nature. All anti-fungal medications proved utterly ineffective in addressing Meyer's Rash. Now, recent antibody studies seem to suggest, quite surprisingly, that Meyer's Rash is caused by a virus."

In the medical investigator's argument, the portion in boldface plays which of the following roles?

A) It presents an explanation that the argument concludes is correct.
B) It introduces a judgment that the argument opposes.
C) It is a finding the argument seeks to explain.
D) It provides evidence in support of the main conclusion of the argument.
E) It is the main conclusion of the argument.



Please highlight the portion in Boldface.
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 31 May 2014
Posts: 5
Concentration: Real Estate, International Business
Schools: CBS '18
Re: Medical Investigator: "Podiatrists initially assumed that Meyer's Rash  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Aug 2015, 04:37
it supports the argument. so answer is D
Retired Moderator
User avatar
Joined: 06 Jul 2014
Posts: 1244
Location: Ukraine
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Technology
GMAT 1: 660 Q48 V33
GMAT 2: 740 Q50 V40
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member
Medical Investigator: "Podiatrists initially assumed that Meyer's Rash  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Aug 2015, 04:49
1
arjunmenonv wrote:
it supports the argument. so answer is D



Hello arjunmenonv

Actually, according to argument, we still do not have assurance that this is virus:
"Now, recent antibody studies seem to suggest, quite surprisingly, that Meyer's Rash is caused by a virus."

And Dr. Pannikar also does not give any evidences because he just argue that this is viral in nature and arguing is not an evidence in case of decease.
"Dr. Pannikar argued that Meyer's Rash was viral in nature"
_________________

Simple way to always control time during the quant part.
How to solve main idea questions without full understanding of RC.
660 (Q48, V33) - unpleasant surprise
740 (Q50, V40, IR3) - anti-debrief ;)

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 31 May 2014
Posts: 5
Concentration: Real Estate, International Business
Schools: CBS '18
Re: Medical Investigator: "Podiatrists initially assumed that Meyer's Rash  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Aug 2015, 04:56
Its C - which is a finding.
because A cant be as it is not an explanation.
Intern
Intern
User avatar
Joined: 13 Nov 2014
Posts: 47
GMAT 1: 590 Q42 V29
GMAT 2: 630 Q47 V29
Re: Medical Investigator: "Podiatrists initially assumed that Meyer's Rash  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 10 Aug 2015, 19:12
1
Harley1980 wrote:
Medical Investigator: "Podiatrists initially assumed that Meyer's Rash, an itchy rash between the toes, was a fungal infection similar to athlete's foot. At first, only Dr. Pannikar argued that Meyer's Rash was viral in nature. All anti-fungal medications proved utterly ineffective in addressing Meyer's Rash. Now, recent antibody studies seem to suggest, quite surprisingly, that Meyer's Rash is caused by a virus."

In the medical investigator's argument, the portion in boldface plays which of the following roles?

A) It presents an explanation that the argument concludes is correct.
B) It introduces a judgment that the argument opposes.
C) It is a finding the argument seeks to explain.
D) It provides evidence in support of the main conclusion of the argument.
E) It is the main conclusion of the argument.


A says that it is an explanation, while in actual argument the boldface looks like just a casual statement which author wanted to emphasize in order to defend Dr. Pannikar's claim. I really did not get the answer. Apart from A i would say E looks the best option.
This is really confusing :|
_________________

-----------------------------------------
Consider Cudos if you like this post.
-----------------------------------------

Retired Moderator
User avatar
Joined: 06 Jul 2014
Posts: 1244
Location: Ukraine
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Technology
GMAT 1: 660 Q48 V33
GMAT 2: 740 Q50 V40
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member
Re: Medical Investigator: "Podiatrists initially assumed that Meyer's Rash  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 11 Aug 2015, 01:26
dav90 wrote:
Harley1980 wrote:
Medical Investigator: "Podiatrists initially assumed that Meyer's Rash, an itchy rash between the toes, was a fungal infection similar to athlete's foot. At first, only Dr. Pannikar argued that Meyer's Rash was viral in nature. All anti-fungal medications proved utterly ineffective in addressing Meyer's Rash. Now, recent antibody studies seem to suggest, quite surprisingly, that Meyer's Rash is caused by a virus."

In the medical investigator's argument, the portion in boldface plays which of the following roles?

A) It presents an explanation that the argument concludes is correct.
B) It introduces a judgment that the argument opposes.
C) It is a finding the argument seeks to explain.
D) It provides evidence in support of the main conclusion of the argument.
E) It is the main conclusion of the argument.


A says that it is an explanation, while in actual argument the boldface looks like just a casual statement which author wanted to emphasize in order to defend Dr. Pannikar's claim. I really did not get the answer. Apart from A i would say E looks the best option.
This is really confusing :|


Hello dav90

I read oxford vocabulary and think that this claim is 'explanation':

Oxford vocabulary determination of explanation:
ex·plan·ation noun 1. countable, uncountable a statement, fact, or situation that tells you why sth happened; a reason given for sth

So in our case we can apply to this phrase of Doctor: statement that tells you why sth happened.
"Dr. Pannikar argued that Meyer's Rash was viral in nature."
So this statement says that Meyer's Rash happened because of virus nature.

Why do you think that this claim is not explanation?
_________________

Simple way to always control time during the quant part.
How to solve main idea questions without full understanding of RC.
660 (Q48, V33) - unpleasant surprise
740 (Q50, V40, IR3) - anti-debrief ;)

Current Student
User avatar
B
Joined: 05 Apr 2015
Posts: 399
Reviews Badge
Re: Medical Investigator: "Podiatrists initially assumed that Meyer's Rash  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 11 Aug 2015, 01:28
Seriously a tricky one. Since explanation lies in these lines:"All anti-fungal medications proved utterly ineffective in addressing Meyer's Rash".

Regards,
Dom.
Retired Moderator
User avatar
Joined: 06 Jul 2014
Posts: 1244
Location: Ukraine
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Technology
GMAT 1: 660 Q48 V33
GMAT 2: 740 Q50 V40
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member
Re: Medical Investigator: "Podiatrists initially assumed that Meyer's Rash  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 11 Aug 2015, 01:30
1
dominicraj wrote:
Seriously a tricky one. Since explanation lies in these lines:"All anti-fungal medications proved utterly ineffective in addressing Meyer's Rash".

Regards,
Dom.


Hello dominicraj
I think this is fact and evidence but not explanation.
_________________

Simple way to always control time during the quant part.
How to solve main idea questions without full understanding of RC.
660 (Q48, V33) - unpleasant surprise
740 (Q50, V40, IR3) - anti-debrief ;)

Current Student
User avatar
B
Joined: 05 Apr 2015
Posts: 399
Reviews Badge
Medical Investigator: "Podiatrists initially assumed that Meyer's Rash  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post Updated on: 11 Aug 2015, 01:55
Hi Harley,

IMO, the argument concludes that the Rash is viral. Now what is the suggested reason(explanation) for that?

The fact that all anti-fungal medicines were ineffective.

What is highlighted is "the first instance" a finding... that the argument then proves is right..

Can you please share your line of reasoning so that we can understand that perhaps.

Regards,
Dom.

Originally posted by dominicraj on 11 Aug 2015, 01:43.
Last edited by dominicraj on 11 Aug 2015, 01:55, edited 2 times in total.
Retired Moderator
User avatar
Joined: 06 Jul 2014
Posts: 1244
Location: Ukraine
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Technology
GMAT 1: 660 Q48 V33
GMAT 2: 740 Q50 V40
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member
Medical Investigator: "Podiatrists initially assumed that Meyer's Rash  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 11 Aug 2015, 02:14
dominicraj wrote:
Hi Harley,

IMO, the argument concludes that the Rash is viral. Now what is the suggested reason(explanation) for that?

The fact that all anti-fungal medicines were ineffective.

What is highlighted is "the first instance" a finding... that the argument then proves is right..

Can you please share your line of reasoning so that we can understand that perhaps.

Regards,
Dom.


I think that explanation should looks like:
"The Rash is viral because all anti-fungal medications are ineffective for Rash"

But then we met
"All anti-fungal medications proved utterly ineffective in addressing Meyer's Rash" this is just observation, fact or evidence that can be used for make some explanation. But alone this phrase explain nothing. It is we who make some conclusions from this phrase, not the phrase itself.
_________________

Simple way to always control time during the quant part.
How to solve main idea questions without full understanding of RC.
660 (Q48, V33) - unpleasant surprise
740 (Q50, V40, IR3) - anti-debrief ;)

Intern
Intern
User avatar
Joined: 13 Nov 2014
Posts: 47
GMAT 1: 590 Q42 V29
GMAT 2: 630 Q47 V29
Re: Medical Investigator: "Podiatrists initially assumed that Meyer's Rash  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 11 Aug 2015, 20:10
Harley1980 wrote:
dav90 wrote:
Harley1980 wrote:
Medical Investigator: "Podiatrists initially assumed that Meyer's Rash, an itchy rash between the toes, was a fungal infection similar to athlete's foot. At first, only Dr. Pannikar argued that Meyer's Rash was viral in nature. All anti-fungal medications proved utterly ineffective in addressing Meyer's Rash. Now, recent antibody studies seem to suggest, quite surprisingly, that Meyer's Rash is caused by a virus."

In the medical investigator's argument, the portion in boldface plays which of the following roles?

A) It presents an explanation that the argument concludes is correct.
B) It introduces a judgment that the argument opposes.
C) It is a finding the argument seeks to explain.
D) It provides evidence in support of the main conclusion of the argument.
E) It is the main conclusion of the argument.


A says that it is an explanation, while in actual argument the boldface looks like just a casual statement which author wanted to emphasize in order to defend Dr. Pannikar's claim. I really did not get the answer. Apart from A i would say E looks the best option.
This is really confusing :|


Hello dav90

I read oxford vocabulary and think that this claim is 'explanation':

Oxford vocabulary determination of explanation:
ex·plan·ation noun 1. countable, uncountable a statement, fact, or situation that tells you why sth happened; a reason given for sth

So in our case we can apply to this phrase of Doctor: statement that tells you why sth happened.
"Dr. Pannikar argued that Meyer's Rash was viral in nature."
So this statement says that Meyer's Rash happened because of virus nature.

Why do you think that this claim is not explanation?



Thanks for a detailed reply.

I cannot deny the possibility of there being a subtle connotation of word Explanation.
But in general if i have to say what do i mean by explanation i would like to give one example.

lets consider 2 statements below
1) [Choice A is the correct answer]
2) [I read oxford vocabulary and think that this claim is 'explanation':

Oxford vocabulary determination of explanation:
ex·plan·ation noun 1. countable, uncountable a statement, fact, or situation that tells you why sth happened; a reason given for sth

So in our case we can apply to this phrase of Doctor: statement that tells you why sth happened.
"Dr. Pannikar argued that Meyer's Rash was viral in nature."
So this statement says that Meyer's Rash happened because of virus nature.]

if asked, I would say second sentence is explanation while first one is either a claim or a conclusion

Please correct me if i m deviating too much from the intended discussion.
_________________

-----------------------------------------
Consider Cudos if you like this post.
-----------------------------------------

Retired Moderator
User avatar
Joined: 06 Jul 2014
Posts: 1244
Location: Ukraine
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Technology
GMAT 1: 660 Q48 V33
GMAT 2: 740 Q50 V40
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member
Re: Medical Investigator: "Podiatrists initially assumed that Meyer's Rash  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 12 Aug 2015, 01:38
1
dav90 wrote:
Thanks for a detailed reply.

I cannot deny the possibility of there being a subtle connotation of word Explanation.
But in general if i have to say what do i mean by explanation i would like to give one example.

lets consider 2 statements below
1) [Choice A is the correct answer]
2) [I read oxford vocabulary and think that this claim is 'explanation':

Oxford vocabulary determination of explanation:
ex·plan·ation noun 1. countable, uncountable a statement, fact, or situation that tells you why sth happened; a reason given for sth

So in our case we can apply to this phrase of Doctor: statement that tells you why sth happened.
"Dr. Pannikar argued that Meyer's Rash was viral in nature."
So this statement says that Meyer's Rash happened because of virus nature.]

if asked, I would say second sentence is explanation while first one is either a claim or a conclusion

Please correct me if i m deviating too much from the intended discussion.

Hello dav90

I will be honest I have a little revision of my opinion about this question and now I hesitate about why this is explanation and not conclusion
Now I think that the main wrinkle of this task that we doesn't have premises that support claim of doctor.

According to EGmat we can test conclusion by applying word 'because'
The Dow is a cow [conclusion] because she gives a milk and all cows give a milk [premise].

But if we try to apply this test to current question then we received:

At first, only Dr. Pannikar argued that Meyer's Rash was viral in nature. [possible conclusion] because
1) All anti-fungal medications proved utterly ineffective in addressing Meyer's Rash
we can not say that this is needed premise because we don't know timeline of this fact and this fact is not enough fr such conclusion.

2) Now, recent antibody studies seem to suggest, quite surprisingly, that Meyer's Rash is caused by a virus.
We can not use this because it happens after claim of doctor.

But as I mentioned early I am not completely sure in this explanation so I will be glad if somebody gives another opinion about this question.
_________________

Simple way to always control time during the quant part.
How to solve main idea questions without full understanding of RC.
660 (Q48, V33) - unpleasant surprise
740 (Q50, V40, IR3) - anti-debrief ;)

Retired Moderator
User avatar
Joined: 06 Jul 2014
Posts: 1244
Location: Ukraine
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Technology
GMAT 1: 660 Q48 V33
GMAT 2: 740 Q50 V40
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member
Re: Medical Investigator: "Podiatrists initially assumed that Meyer's Rash  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 12 Aug 2015, 01:39
Harley1980 wrote:
Medical Investigator: "Podiatrists initially assumed that Meyer's Rash, an itchy rash between the toes, was a fungal infection similar to athlete's foot. At first, only Dr. Pannikar argued that Meyer's Rash was viral in nature. All anti-fungal medications proved utterly ineffective in addressing Meyer's Rash. Now, recent antibody studies seem to suggest, quite surprisingly, that Meyer's Rash is caused by a virus."

In the medical investigator's argument, the portion in boldface plays which of the following roles?

A) It presents an explanation that the argument concludes is correct.
B) It introduces a judgment that the argument opposes.
C) It is a finding the argument seeks to explain.
D) It provides evidence in support of the main conclusion of the argument.
E) It is the main conclusion of the argument.



OE from Magoosh:

The bold sentence talks about Dr. Pannikar's argument, that Meyer's Rash was viral. At the time, he was the only one saying that, but as the medical investigator explains, his view is now the generally accepted conclusion.

(A) is the credited answer. At the time, Pannikar was alone in giving this explanation, but the main conclusion is that, now, this explanation has been vindicated by science.

(E) is close, but not correct. Technically, the bold statement itself is not the conclusion. The conclusion is that what Dr. Pannikar said in the bold statement really turns out to be true.

(B) is wrong. The bold statement presents, according to the medical investigator, what now is accepted as the truth. Therefore, the medical investigator does not oppose it.

(C) is wrong: the bold statement is an explanation, not a finding that needs to be explained.

(D) is wrong: the bold statement does not provide evidence. One person saying something is right does not constitute proof in science. The bold statement is an explanation, not evidence for anything.
_________________

Simple way to always control time during the quant part.
How to solve main idea questions without full understanding of RC.
660 (Q48, V33) - unpleasant surprise
740 (Q50, V40, IR3) - anti-debrief ;)

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 30 Sep 2015
Posts: 7
Location: Portugal
GPA: 3.2
WE: Analyst (Investment Banking)
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Medical Investigator: "Podiatrists initially assumed that Meyer's Rash  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 07 Nov 2015, 13:31
1
The problem with A, in my opinion, is that Dr. Pannikar is not offering any explanation.

It seems that is just providing an alternative cause to Meyer's Rash, that studies made later proved to be right.

I may be being a little picky, but offering an explanation or an alternative cause is not the same.

I believe the correct option should say: "It presents an alternative that the argument concludes is correct."
Manager
Manager
User avatar
B
Status: GMAT Coach
Joined: 05 Nov 2012
Posts: 135
Location: Peru
GPA: 3.98
Re: Medical Investigator: "Podiatrists initially assumed that Meyer's Rash  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 Oct 2016, 09:12
1
Harley1980 wrote:
Harley1980 wrote:
Medical Investigator: "Podiatrists initially assumed that Meyer's Rash, an itchy rash between the toes, was a fungal infection similar to athlete's foot. At first, only Dr. Pannikar argued that Meyer's Rash was viral in nature. All anti-fungal medications proved utterly ineffective in addressing Meyer's Rash. Now, recent antibody studies seem to suggest, quite surprisingly, that Meyer's Rash is caused by a virus."

In the medical investigator's argument, the portion in boldface plays which of the following roles?

A) It presents an explanation that the argument concludes is correct.
B) It introduces a judgment that the argument opposes.
C) It is a finding the argument seeks to explain.
D) It provides evidence in support of the main conclusion of the argument.
E) It is the main conclusion of the argument.



OE from Magoosh:

The bold sentence talks about Dr. Pannikar's argument, that Meyer's Rash was viral. At the time, he was the only one saying that, but as the medical investigator explains, his view is now the generally accepted conclusion.

(A) is the credited answer. At the time, Pannikar was alone in giving this explanation, but the main conclusion is that, now, this explanation has been vindicated by science.

(E) is close, but not correct. Technically, the bold statement itself is not the conclusion. The conclusion is that what Dr. Pannikar said in the bold statement really turns out to be true.

(B) is wrong. The bold statement presents, according to the medical investigator, what now is accepted as the truth. Therefore, the medical investigator does not oppose it.

(C) is wrong: the bold statement is an explanation, not a finding that needs to be explained.

(D) is wrong: the bold statement does not provide evidence. One person saying something is right does not constitute proof in science. The bold statement is an explanation, not evidence for anything.



"Dr. Pannikar argued that Meyer's Rash was viral in nature". Arguing is not the same as presenting an explanation.

"All anti-fungal medications proved utterly ineffective in addressing Meyer's Rash" is a fact that would explain Dr. Pannikar position.

The correct choice should be something like this: It presents a position that the argument concludes is correct.
_________________

Clipper Ledgard
GMAT Coach

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 17 Sep 2016
Posts: 276
Re: Medical Investigator: "Podiatrists initially assumed that Meyer's Rash  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 25 Oct 2016, 21:02
Hi experts,

would you please explain further on C.

Only Dr. P argued that Meyer's Rash was viral in nature.
obviously , it is Dr.P's opinion, and latter, there are studies prove the opinion.
I don't think bold words is explanation because it is opinion and proved by the latter studies.
if explanation, it will further info to illustrate the conclusion that Meyer's Rash is caused by virus

compared "explanation" with "finding",
I picked up "finding".

genuinely want your help

thanks in advance

have a nice day
>_~
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 17 Sep 2016
Posts: 276
Re: Medical Investigator: "Podiatrists initially assumed that Meyer's Rash  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 29 Oct 2016, 04:06
zoezhuyan wrote:
Hi experts,

would you please explain further on C.

Only Dr. P argued that Meyer's Rash was viral in nature.
obviously , it is Dr.P's opinion, and latter, there are studies prove the opinion.
I don't think bold words is explanation because it is opinion and proved by the latter studies.
if explanation, it will further info to illustrate the conclusion that Meyer's Rash is caused by virus

compared "explanation" with "finding",
I picked up "finding".

genuinely want your help

thanks in advance

have a nice day
>_~


Hi experts,
I am afraid my thread was sunk ,

call for help .... :?:

thanks a lot
have a nice day
>_~
Retired Moderator
User avatar
G
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 3112
Location: Germany
Schools: HHL Leipzig
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47
WE: Corporate Finance (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: Medical Investigator: "Podiatrists initially assumed that Meyer's Rash  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 29 Oct 2016, 08:00
zoezhuyan wrote:
zoezhuyan wrote:
Hi experts,

would you please explain further on C.

Only Dr. P argued that Meyer's Rash was viral in nature.
obviously , it is Dr.P's opinion, and latter, there are studies prove the opinion.
I don't think bold words is explanation because it is opinion and proved by the latter studies.
if explanation, it will further info to illustrate the conclusion that Meyer's Rash is caused by virus

compared "explanation" with "finding",
I picked up "finding".

genuinely want your help

thanks in advance

have a nice day
>_~


Hi experts,
I am afraid my thread was sunk ,

call for help .... :?:

thanks a lot
have a nice day
>_~


Yes, I agree with you. The bold faced sentence is not a "finding". However it is not an "explanation" either. The question would have been better if the word used were "opinion" or something similar.

Moreover only "Meyer's Rash was viral in nature" needs to be bold faced.That Panicker argued something is not the point of the argument - there is no contention that Panicker did not argue.
Re: Medical Investigator: "Podiatrists initially assumed that Meyer's Rash &nbs [#permalink] 29 Oct 2016, 08:00

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 33 posts ] 

Display posts from previous: Sort by

Medical Investigator: "Podiatrists initially assumed that Meyer's Rash

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

Events & Promotions

PREV
NEXT


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®.