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

 It is currently 18 Sep 2018, 22:20

### 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

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

# Of patients over 65 years old who survived coronary bypass

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 29 Nov 2009
Posts: 105
Location: United States
Re: Of patients over 65 years old who survived coronary bypass  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Feb 2010, 19:21
This is a GMAT Prep question from mba.com. The OA is E. I was tempted by D myself, but E is saying that the 1/4 (non-benefiting person) and the 3/4 patients had exactly the same conditions going into the surgery so there's no way the doctor could know a patient would become a 1/4 rather than a 3/4.

While D states the patients were fully informed, this does not mean that the doctor was pushing a patient to do the surgery knowing that he was a 1/4 rather than a 3/4.
Manager
Status: Applying
Joined: 19 Jul 2009
Posts: 127
Location: United Kingdom
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
GPA: 3.65
WE: Consulting (Telecommunications)
Re: Of patients over 65 years old who survived coronary bypass  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Feb 2010, 05:04
Good Question ...

D is tempting but its not about the Patients being informed about the procedure but rather that the medical condition is indistinguishable since then the DOctor would not know which one to take a chance on..
Intern
Joined: 25 Mar 2010
Posts: 5
Location: Canton, China
Re: Of patients over 65 years old who survived coronary bypass  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Mar 2010, 20:10
i was also stuck between D and E...but after consideration, i chose E finally..

first of all, A & B & C are not relevant to the assumption itself..eliminate them as soon as possible

D. in the argument, it says that "doctors who advised..., with its attendant risks and expense..." this indicates that patients have already known the potential risks of the surgery before taking it. then D repeats the meaning "The patients....were as fully informed..."...this doesnt make sense at all in the argument!!

E. its logically correct that nobody could predict the result of something before doing it. even doctors couldnt be sure about the success. they could only advise patients to take surgery based on symptoms and tendencies shown on patients. so this would most seriously undermines the argument
_________________

live and love like you never hurt.

Intern
Joined: 02 Apr 2009
Posts: 4
Re: Of patients over 65 years old who survived coronary bypass  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Jun 2010, 08:25
I have gone through these discussions but still unable to clear my doubts. Hoping to get some reply.

In the eg: specified the dealer don't know whether the cars had any problems prior to the sale, but he operated on those cars prior to sales. He could have tested his skills(screw up something) or removed few parts for money etc,.
=============================================================
A dealer sells second-hand cars. Last year 75% of the cars didn't present any problems after the sale, whereas the other 25% presented several problems a few months after the sale. Clearly in that 25% percent of the cars sold, the dealer was more interested in making profit that in the security of the people who bought the cars.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument?

-- the dealer didn't know whether the cars had any problems prior to the sale.
-- the dealer equally informed all the customers about the risks of buying a second-hand car.

In this example, I know is not exactly the same, the correct answer choice is clearly the first one. The dealer here could know that the cars were in bad condition, and still convinced the people to buy the cars.
=================================================

As the comparison has to be similar with original CR. All the patients are indistinguishable prior to surgery, but few benefit and few not benefit after operation. This could be due to doctor used non benefit patients for testing(screwing them)

Still confusion why OA is E.
The patients who underwent coronary bypass surgery but who did not benefit from it were medically indistinguishable, prior to their surgery, from the patients who did benefit.

============================================

Manager
Joined: 03 Feb 2010
Posts: 60
Re: Of patients over 65 years old who survived coronary bypass  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Sep 2010, 12:14
E strthens the argument,as the patients were mdically different,so doc did the surgery even they knwe it wont benefit.
how could be the E ans ?
Senior Manager
Status: Can't give up
Joined: 20 Dec 2009
Posts: 254
Re: Of patients over 65 years old who survived coronary bypass  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Dec 2010, 13:55
E - does convey that pple who underwent surgery were indistinguishable from pple who did not undergo surgery. After surgery there seemed so healthy they were matching the pple who did not need surgery.
Intern
Joined: 27 Mar 2011
Posts: 1
Re: Of patients over 65 years old who survived coronary bypass  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 Mar 2011, 07:16
Excellent question.

I piced D at first, but then I realized that:

Even fully informed the RISKS of the surgery before, the 1/4 patients DIDN'T know that, to the surgeons who were aware of the situation, they are going to practice objects. So these patients would accept the risks, thinking that they have the opportunity to survive, only to be practiced on.

So D doesn't undermine the arguement.

Only when even the surgeons couldn't predict the result before the operation, they are out of hook.

Hope my explanation helps
Manager
Joined: 06 Sep 2010
Posts: 84
Re: Of patients over 65 years old who survived coronary bypass  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 Mar 2011, 19:34
Answer choice E as it is the only option which gives the benefit of doubt to the doctors for going ahead with the surgery!

If we look at option D, it gives a justification from the patient's side to take the surgery knowing the risks associated with the surgery which henceforth fails to undermine the argument of doctor's performing the surgery for just monetary benefits...
Senior Manager
Joined: 29 Jan 2011
Posts: 309
Re: Of patients over 65 years old who survived coronary bypass  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Jul 2011, 02:12
I have read all the posts and mostly people eliminate D since it repeats whats given in the passage....but i have seen some cases where the stuff that is repeated is infact the correct answer...i dont have an example to cite but has someone seen a case like mine before??? Do you D if there was no option E at all??

I am still not convinced with the D elimination....is there any better explanation rather than D repeats whats stated ...???
Manager
Joined: 25 Aug 2008
Posts: 177
Location: India
WE 1: 3.75 IT
WE 2: 1.0 IT
Re: Of patients over 65 years old who survived coronary bypass  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Jul 2011, 03:15
siddhans wrote:
I have read all the posts and mostly people eliminate D since it repeats whats given in the passage....but i have seen some cases where the stuff that is repeated is infact the correct answer...i dont have an example to cite but has someone seen a case like mine before??? Do you D if there was no option E at all??

I am still not convinced with the D elimination....is there any better explanation rather than D repeats whats stated ...???

E is the right answer because the doctor patients were medically indistinguishable and the doctor performed operation for beneficial outcomes. Incase the patients were medically distinguishable and the doctor would had still performed operation then it would had been for money.

Also in D, the doctor told the patients about risks and the argument even states that the doctor perfomed those operation for their bebefit even though with its risk and expenses.
_________________

Cheers,
Varun

If you like my post, give me KUDOS!!

Intern
Joined: 07 Aug 2011
Posts: 6
Re: Of patients over 65 years old who survived coronary bypass  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Aug 2011, 00:50
mikeCoolBoy wrote:
This is a difficult question, but the correct answer choice is clearly E.

Consider the following analogy, perhaps not the best one but I hope it will be good enough to make the point.

A dealer sells second-hand cars. Last year 75% of the cars didn't present any problems after the sale, whereas the other 25% presented several problems a few months after the sale. Clearly in that 25% percent of the cars sold, the dealer was more interested in making profit that in the security of the people who bought the cars.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument?

-- the dealer didn't know whether the cars had any problems prior to the sale.
-- the dealer equally informed all the customers about the risks of buying a second-hand car.

In this example, I know is not exactly the same, the correct answer choice is clearly the first one. The dealer here could know that the cars were in bad condition, and still convinced the people to buy the cars.

What makes option D incorrect?

If you read closely the stimulus is says

Thus it appears that for one in four such patients, the doctors who advised them to undergo this surgery, with its attendant risks and expense.

IMO the stimulus already acknowledges for the information given, so the doctors could haven given the same information but recommended patients undergo to the coronary bypass surgery even if the doctors knew that the patients would not benefit.

This analogy doesn't hold because a car dealership is only selling a car, while a doctor actually operates on a body. If you compare surgeons to mechanics, E doesn't hold as well. Say 100 cars come into a huge shop, with the SAME PROBLEM (medically indistinguishable). 75 of those get fixed by legit mechanics, while 25 go to the incompetent ones that only care about making money. Those 25 do not "benefit from the surgery". I understand why D is wrong, but I don't get how E could be right.
Manager
Joined: 16 Oct 2011
Posts: 95
Location: United States
Re: Of patients over 65 years old who survived coronary bypass  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Dec 2011, 08:20
mikeCoolBoy wrote:
rohansherry wrote:
thanks mike..But my ques here to all the experience holders is .... When we slice through the options and and if we get this feeling that this one is perfect , we tend to take the other options lightly.. And in the quest of the right ans in a short time .. we miss the importance of anther option which also may b eimportant ......It happens wid me....The moment i perceive that , for ex, option B is correctly sounds good, though i do read the other options but i just skim thrgh it...........

Same happened with this ques also after coming to D when i felt i got the right ans i missed the importance of E...

Does it happen with anyone else......Any advice?????????

This happens to me to. That's why is important to go through all the answer choices. If you have two contenders, then try to look for that piece of information that makes one better. In difficult questions, like this one, that is difficult.
Under exam conditions perhaps I would have chosen D because sounds right at first.

Lovely analysis !
Exactly, it is a psychological problem for test-takers, I reckon!
I'm making a conscious effort to get rid of that !

But, what a point to make it here, I would've thought about this a lot of times, but it takes a great presence to state it here !
That's why I love this CLUB !

And abt the answer, I am quite confident abt E.
D is not required, I think is a trap!
Already, it is mentioned in the stem that there is this attender's risk & expense, so IMHO, what if the patient is informed! Philosophically too , whou could say whatt??
All of them get informed in a similar way - OOS!
Whereas, E means medically indistinguishable. I'd appreciate the use of medically, here, which clarifies that the doctor remains incomprehensible even after the treatment - Perfect!
Retired Moderator
Status: Flying over the cloud!
Joined: 17 Aug 2011
Posts: 729
Location: Viet Nam
GMAT Date: 06-06-2014
GPA: 3.07
Re: Of patients over 65 years old who survived coronary bypass  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Dec 2011, 02:22
the doctor cannot disincguish the patients, so we cannot conclude that these doctors take advantages of patient to practice procedure.
_________________

Rules for posting in verbal gmat forum, read it before posting anything in verbal forum
Giving me + 1 kudos if my post is valuable with you

The more you like my post, the more you share to other's need

CR: Focus of the Week: Must be True Question

Senior Manager
Status: Final Countdown
Joined: 17 Mar 2010
Posts: 478
Location: India
GPA: 3.82
WE: Account Management (Retail Banking)
Re: Of patients over 65 years old who survived coronary bypass  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Jul 2012, 11:56
maybeam wrote:
Of patients over 65 years old who survived coronary bypass surgery—a procedure widely prescribed for people with heart disease—only 75 percent benefited from the surgery. Thus it appears that for one in four such patients, the doctors who advised them to undergo this surgery, with its attendant risks and expense, were more interested in an opportunity to practice their skills and in their fee than in helping the patient.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument?
A. Many of the patients who receive coronary bypass surgery are less than 55 years old.
B. Possible benefits of coronary bypass surgery include both relief from troubling symptoms and prolongation of life.
C. Most of the patients in the survey decided to undergo coronary bypass surgery because they were advised that the surgery would reduce their risk of future heart attacks.
D. The patients over 65 years old who did not benefit from the coronary bypass surgery were as fully informed as those who did benefit from the surgery as to the risks of the surgery prior to undergoing it.
E. The patients who underwent coronary bypass surgery but who did not benefit from it were medically indistinguishable, prior to their surgery, from the patients who did benefit.

Quote:
while answering this question i was confused b/w D and OA but could not nail the right reasons to rule out D

plz help

We are looking for a AC which can tell us that the doctors were not aware that on which patient the surgery will be successful or not, because (E) says that the doctors did not know it so it weakens the argument that the doctors knowingly performed surgeries to earn money even though they knew that the patient will not survive.

(D)is out of scope ; we do not know that one out of 4 died patients were aged more than 65 or not.
_________________

" Make more efforts "
Press Kudos if you liked my post

VP
Status: Been a long time guys...
Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 1239
Location: United States (NY)
Concentration: Finance, Marketing
GPA: 3.75
Re: Of patients over 65 years old who survived coronary bypass  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Jul 2013, 23:38
Of patients over 65 years old who survived coronary bypass surgery—a procedure widely prescribed for people with heart disease—only 75 percent benefited from the surgery. Thus it appears that for one in four such patients, the doctors who advised them to undergo this surgery, with its attendant risks and expense, were more interested in an opportunity to practice their skills and in their fee than in helping the patient.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument?

A. Many of the patients who receive coronary bypass surgery are less than 55 years old
.
B. Possible benefits of coronary bypass surgery include both relief from troubling symptoms and prolongation of life.

C. Most of the patients in the survey decided to undergo coronary bypass surgery because they were advised that the surgery would reduce their risk of future heart attacks.

D. The patients over 65 years old who did not benefit from the coronary bypass surgery were as fully informed as those who did benefit from the surgery as to the risks of the surgery prior to undergoing it.

E. The patients who underwent coronary bypass surgery but who did not benefit from it were medically indistinguishable, prior to their surgery, from the patients who did benefit.

Find the conclusion:
The doctors who advised them to undergo this surgery were more interested in an opportunity to practice their skills and in their fee than in helping the patient.

Choice E states that the medical patients were MEDICALLY INDISTINGUISHABLE from one another. Since this is the case, then no doctor could have placed a bet on a certain patient in order to enhance his/her surgery skills. E nails the conclusion.

On the other hand, D states that patients who got benefit from the surgery were as equally informed as the patients who didn't get benefit. Okay. Let us agree, but does it destroys the conclusion. No, not at all.

It is a straight E.
Regards,
_________________
Intern
Joined: 14 May 2011
Posts: 10
Location: US
Re: Of patients over 65 years old who survived coronary bypass  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Dec 2013, 12:59
Of patients over 65 years old who survived coronary bypass surgery—a procedure widely prescribed for people with heart disease—only 75 percent benefited from the surgery. Thus it appears that for one in four such patients, the doctors who advised them to undergo this surgery, with its attendant risks and expense, were more interested in an opportunity to practice their skills and in their fee than in helping the patient.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument?

My approach :
Clearly a "Weakener" question (undermines the argument). The Argument - states a fact (success rate of surgery) and a conclusion ("Thus") drawn that Doctors were more interested in X than Y (Please see the main subject and verb of conclusion are - 'Doctors' and 'were interetsed'. ~Patients and ~Advise are just setting the context of the situation that is in question)

To undermine - A new fact would undermine this argument if it can make the conclusion less beleivable. A fact like that "doctors did not sell the surgery to patients purposefully / Doctors meant well when they advised but surgery just did not go as planned"

It is like an analogy - When you dont know whats wrong with your car and take it to workshop for check up. And the mechanic (who knows that it is just a short fuse in a wire) sells / advises you to change the engine instead for vested interests. Here he did it purposefully to make profits even though he HAD DISTINGUISHED BEFOREHAND that the car just needs a wire replaced.

Therefore choosing between popular choces D and E
D- Disclosure of risks would not make a difference to either Group 1 (1/4) or Group 2 (3/4) when it comes to Doctor's advise to go for surgery. Therefore cant be a Weakener.

E- Whether the Group1 (1/4) was medically DISTINGUISHABLE from Group 2 (3/4) PRIOR TO SURGERY - will definitely make one question Doctor's motives and therefore is a weakener.

----------------------------------------
Press +Kudos if you like what you see
_________________

-------------------------------------------------
Press +Kudos if you like what you see

Senior Manager
Joined: 04 May 2013
Posts: 314
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Human Resources
Schools: XLRI GM"18
GPA: 4
WE: Human Resources (Human Resources)
Re: Of patients over 65 years old who survived coronary bypass  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

29 Apr 2014, 02:15
1
maybeam wrote:
Of patients over 65 years old who survived coronary bypass surgery—a procedure widely prescribed for people with heart disease—only 75 percent benefited from the surgery. Thus it appears that for one in four such patients, the doctors who advised them to undergo this surgery, with its attendant risks and expense, were more interested in an opportunity to practice their skills and in their fee than in helping the patient.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument?
A. Many of the patients who receive coronary bypass surgery are less than 55 years old.
B. Possible benefits of coronary bypass surgery include both relief from troubling symptoms and prolongation of life.
C. Most of the patients in the survey decided to undergo coronary bypass surgery because they were advised that the surgery would reduce their risk of future heart attacks.
D. The patients over 65 years old who did not benefit from the coronary bypass surgery were as fully informed as those who did benefit from the surgery as to the risks of the surgery prior to undergoing it.
E. The patients who underwent coronary bypass surgery but who did not benefit from it were medically indistinguishable, prior to their surgery, from the patients who did benefit.

Quote:
while answering this question i was confused b/w D and OA but could not nail the right reasons to rule out D
plz help

D and E are close.....APPLY SO WHAT CHECK.....

D. The patients over 65 years old who did not benefit from the coronary bypass surgery were as fully informed as those who did benefit from the surgery as to the risks of the surgery prior to undergoing it. SO WHAT...INFORMING ALL ABOUT RISK OF SURGERY PROVES NOTHING....EVEN IF THEY DID NOT INFORM, the doctors who advised them to undergo this surgery COULD HAVE BEEN more interested in an opportunity to practice their skills and in their fee than in helping the patient.
E. The patients who underwent coronary bypass surgery but who did not benefit from it were medically indistinguishable, prior to their surgery, from the patients who did benefit.
SO WHAT... the doctors who advised them to undergo this surgery COULD NOT HAVE KNOWINGLY ACCEPTED ONE BAD CONDITION PATIENT to practice their skills and earn fee. SINCE ALL WERE ALIKE WE CANT SAY ONE WAS CHOSEN TO MAKE MONEY............

Director
Joined: 26 Oct 2016
Posts: 652
Location: United States
Schools: HBS '19
GMAT 1: 770 Q51 V44
GPA: 4
WE: Education (Education)
Re: Of patients over 65 years old who survived coronary bypass  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 May 2017, 04:19
The conclusion: the doctors who recommended the surgery were doing so for selfish reasons (a chance to hone their skills/a chance to make \$)
The premise: 25% of the patients undergoing the operation did not benefit.

The argument is asserting that the doctors, in some cases, knew that a patient was a bad candidate for the surgery, but recommended the procedure anyway. (Imagine a doctor evaluating a patient, thinking to herself, "yikes, there's no way this procedure will work," and then doing it anyway for the money.)

If we want to undermine that claim, we want to show that the doctors were not consciously thinking that some of these patients would make poor candidates for the procedure.

D is irrelevant. We're assessing the knowledge/motivation of the doctors, not of the patients.

E: If it were impossible to tell the difference between the patients who would benefit and those who wouldn't, then doctors couldn't possibly have been thinking to themselves that some of the patients were poor candidates for the procedure, as they looked just like the ones that benefited. So the scenario above, where the doctor is thinking to herself "bad candidate, but let's make some money!" is no longer plausible. E is the answer.

Moreover, The conclusion here is the last sentence: the doctors were more interested in practicing their skills and making money than in helping the 1 in 4 patients who did not benefit from the surgery. This assumes without providing justification that there's no other reason that doctors would perform the surgery on people who did not benefit from it. However, E weakens the argument by explaining that there was no way to know who would or wouldn't benefit from the surgery; prior to the surgery, all of the patients seemed the same, so until they actually operated and saw the outcome, the doctors had no idea which patients would see good results and which ones wouldn't. Therefore, they weren't necessarily trying to practice their skills and make money on the 25% that didn't see good results. They might have really been trying to help everyone, and 25% of the time, they just failed for some reason.

Just wanted to note that the question says "undermines."

"undermines" = weakens argument

"underlies" = basis for argument, supports

Good to watch out for those two very close-looking words!

E is the best answer choice here.
_________________

Thanks & Regards,
Anaira Mitch

Senior SC Moderator
Joined: 14 Nov 2016
Posts: 1322
Location: Malaysia
Of patients over 65 years old who survived coronary bypass  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Oct 2017, 02:35
Quote:
Of patients over 65 years old who survived coronary bypass surgery???a procedure widely prescribed for people with heart disease???only 75 percent benefited from the surgery. Thus it appears that for one in four such patients, the doctors who advised them to undergo this surgery, with its attendant risks and expense, were more interested in an opportunity to practice their skills and in their fee than in helping the patient.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument?

(A) Many of the patients who receive coronary bypass surgery are less than 55 years old.

(B) Possible benefits of coronary bypass surgery include both relief from troubling symptoms and prolongation of life.

(C) Most of the patients in the survey decided to undergo coronary bypass surgery because they were advised that the surgery would reduce their risk of future heart attacks.

(D) The patients over 65 years old who did not benefit from the coronary bypass surgery were as fully informed as those who did benefit from the surgery as to the risks of the surgery prior to undergoing it.

(E) The patients who underwent coronary bypass surgery but who did not benefit from it were medically indistinguishable, prior to their surgery, from the patients who did benefit.

GMATNinja & GMATNinjaTwo, Could you help to explain why (D) is incorrect and (E) is correct? I could not understand the meaning of (medically indistinguishable). Does it mean the patients who did not benefit = the patients who did benefit?
_________________

"Be challenged at EVERY MOMENT."

“Strength doesn’t come from what you can do. It comes from overcoming the things you once thought you couldn’t.”

"Each stage of the journey is crucial to attaining new heights of knowledge."

GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Status: GMAT and GRE tutor
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 2003
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
Re: Of patients over 65 years old who survived coronary bypass  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Oct 2017, 09:34
1
hazelnut wrote:
GMATNinja & GMATNinjaTwo, Could you help to explain why (D) is incorrect and (E) is correct? I could not understand the meaning of (medically indistinguishable). Does it mean the patients who did not benefit = the patients who did benefit?

We are told that 25% of patients do not benefit from the surgery. The author thus concludes that "the doctors who advised them to undergo this surgery, with its attendant risks and expense, were more interested in an opportunity to practice their skills and in their fee than in helping the patient." In order to reach such a conclusion, we have to assume that the doctors somehow knew in advance that those patients were less likely to benefit from surgery.

Quote:
(D) The patients over 65 years old who did not benefit from the coronary bypass surgery were as fully informed as those who did benefit from the surgery as to the risks of the surgery prior to undergoing it.

Imagine that the doctors did in fact know in advance that 25% of the patients were unlikely to benefit from the surgery. Even if the doctors fully explained the risks to ALL patients, if the doctors did not inform the 25% that they were less likely to benefit from surgery, then the author's accusation could still be valid.

Quote:
(E) The patients who underwent coronary bypass surgery but who did not benefit from it were medically indistinguishable, prior to their surgery, from the patients who did benefit.

Yes, "medically indistinguishable" implies that the doctors could not tell the difference between the patients who would benefit and the patients who would not benefit. If that were the case, then the doctors could not be guilty of knowingly performing the surgery on patients who were less likely to benefit from surgery. This undermines the author's argument, so choice (E) is the best answer.
_________________

GMAT Club Verbal Expert | GMAT/GRE tutor @ www.gmatninja.com (Now hiring!) | GMAT blog | Food blog | Notoriously bad at PMs

Beginners' guides to GMAT verbal
Reading Comprehension | Critical Reasoning | Sentence Correction

Series 1: Fundamentals of SC & CR | Series 2: Developing a Winning GMAT Mindset

SC & CR Questions of the Day (QOTDs), featuring expert explanations
All QOTDs | Subscribe via email | RSS

Hit the request verbal experts' reply button -- and please be specific about your question. Feel free to tag @GMATNinja and @GMATNinjaTwo in your post. Priority is always given to official GMAT questions.

Sentence Correction articles & resources
How to go from great (760) to incredible (780) on GMAT SC | That "-ing" Word Probably Isn't a Verb | That "-ed" Word Might Not Be a Verb, Either | No-BS Guide to GMAT Idioms | "Being" is not the enemy | WTF is "that" doing in my sentence?

Reading Comprehension, Critical Reasoning, and other articles & resources
All GMAT Ninja articles on GMAT Club | Using LSAT for GMAT CR & RC |7 reasons why your actual GMAT scores don't match your practice test scores | How to get 4 additional "fake" GMAT Prep tests for \$29.99 | Time management on verbal

Re: Of patients over 65 years old who survived coronary bypass &nbs [#permalink] 14 Oct 2017, 09:34

Go to page   Previous    1   2   3    Next  [ 44 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by

# Events & Promotions

 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®.