Certain messenger molecules fight damage to the lungs from noxious air

Exactly!
The argument put forth (to develop a medication that would prevent asthma attacks by blocking receipt of any messages sent by the messenger molecules) disregards any potential disadvantage or side effects of doing so.
The biggest assumption here is that following the suggestion will have no negative consequences.
Option D introduces a potential negative consequence and thus weakens the argument.

Hope that helps,
Ajeeth

It seems like D to me as well. Without knowing the source of activation of messenger molecules the medication can block messages in case of noxious air causing damage to lungs.

THE PLAN CAN ONLY FAIL IF ----THOUGH IT DOES STOP ASTHMATIC ATTACK, BUT INHIBITS THE FUNCTIONING OF THE NOXIOUS AIR COUNTER MECHANISM OF THE HUMAN BODY....
SURE WE HAVE ELIMINATED THE DRAW BACK --- BUT AT THE EXPENSE OF ELIMINATING THE VERY EXISTENCE OF THE - COUNTER NOXIOUS AIR POISONING MECHANISM ITSELF....... ANSWER "D"................

Certain messenger molecules fight damage to the lungs from noxious air by telling the muscle cells encircling the lungs’ airways to contract. This partially seals off the lungs. An asthma attack occurs when the messenger molecules are activated unnecessarily, in response to harmless things like pollen or household dust.

Type - Flaw
Boil it down - Plan to develop asthama medication that would prevent asthma attacks by blocking receipt of any messages sent by the messenger molecules
Pre-Thkining - What if the medication will also block receipt of any messages sent during the case of noxious air ?

(D) Such a medication would be unable to distinguish between messages triggered by pollen and household dust and messages triggered by noxious air. Correct answer

Certain messenger molecules fight damage to the lungs from noxious air by telling the muscle cells encircling the lungs' airways to contract.This partially seals off the lungs.An asthma attack occurs when the messenger molecules are activated unnecessarily, in response to harmless things like pollen or household dust.
Which of the following, if true, points to the most serious flaw of a plan to develop a medication that would prevent asthma attacks by blocking receipt of any messages sent by the messenger molecules referred to above?

A.Researchers do not yet know how the body produces the messenger molecules that trigger asthma attacks.
B.Researchers do not yet know what makes one person's messenger molecules more easily activated than another's.
C.Such a medication would not become available for several years, because of long lead times in both development and manufacture.
D.Such a medication would be unable to distinghuish between messages triggered by pollen and household dust and messages triggered by noxious air.
E.Such a medication would be a preventative only and would be unable to alleviate an asathma attack once it had started.

If message is blocked one of it's positive effects will also be blocked. Hence D is the correct choice.

Premise: The plan is to develop a medication that would prevent asthma attacks by blocking receipt of any messages sent by the messenger molecules.

Pre-thinking:
This is absurd because you don't want all the messages to the messenger molecules to be blocked. You only want the harmless messages to be blocked. For example, if there is carbon monoxide in the vicinity, then I want the messenger molecules to get activated and protect my lungs so that my life can be saved.

So the flaw in the plan is that it is preventing all messages from reaching the messenger molecules. D says the same thing in different words.

do not understand choice D and E

Hi oliver007

(D) Such a medication would be unable to distinguish between messages triggered by pollen and household dust and messages triggered by noxious air. If the effects of using the medication will lead the messenger to become unable to distinguish between harmless and harmful then it is a serious flaw because the pollen and household dust are harmless while noxious air is harmful. It is basically making things worse.

(E) Such a medication would be a preventative only and would be unable to alleviate an asthma attack once it had started. This would actually show that it is preventive. We need a flaw in the medicine rather than something that would strengthen it. Moreover, we are interested in preventing asthma not what happens after it occurs.


I hope this helps.

Lungs can tolerate harmless things such as pollen or household dust but must not take in harmful noxious air.

If "such a medication would be unable to distinguish between messages triggered by pollen and household dust and messages triggered by noxious air " then it should be considered a flaw because lungs
can tolerate those harmless things such as pollen or household dust and these harmless things should be let in. The medication should not bar these harmless things.

So Option D is the answer.

VeritasKarishma But even if we don't let those harmless things such as pollen or household dust in , what harm will happen to the lungs ? Please note that these harmless things such as pollen or household dust are not necessary . :D

The right answer here should be D. If the medication is overzealous, then it will cause breathing discomfort even for harmless materials.

- Matoo

When poisonous air enters the lungs, messenger molecules tell the muscles to seal off the lungs partially. (So breathing would not be natural in this case)
In an asthma attack, the messenger molecules react to harmless things like pollen and tell the muscles to partially seal off the lungs. (One is unable to breathe well during asthma attack)

Plan: Develop a medication to block receipt of messenger molecules. Hence prevent asthma.

Which of the following, if true, points to the biggest weakness in the plan?

(A) Researchers do not yet know how the body produces the messenger molecules that trigger asthma attacks.

Irrelevant. The medicine just needs to block the messenger molecules. How they are produced may be of no significance.

(B) Researchers do not yet know what makes one person’s messenger molecules more easily activated than another’s.

Why asthma attacks occur is not a problem of the plan. The plan intends to prevent the attacks.

(C) Such a medication would not become available for several years, because of long lead times in both development and manufacture.

A long lead time to the success of the plan may not be a big deterrent to the plan itself.

(D) Such a medication would be unable to distinguish between messages triggered by pollen and household dust and messages triggered by noxious air.

Now this is a problem. If the medication cannot distinguish between messages triggered by pollen and messages triggered by poison, it will block all messages. So it will block the poison message too. Hence, when you do want the lungs to be partially sealed off, they would not be. This would damage the lungs.

(E) Such a medication would be a preventative only and would be unable to alleviate an asthma attack once it had started

The plan is to prevent an asthma attack, not alleviate an attack once it has started. This has nothing to do with the plan.

Answer (D)

The problem is opposite. As per (D), the medicine will hinder all messages so the muscles will not contract even when they need to, even when noxious gases enter the lungs.

Can you elaborate? I know that D is the clear cut answer, but a long lead time could certainly be a 'flaw' in the plan.

Which of the following, if true, points to the most serious flaw of a plan to develop a medication that would prevent asthma attacks by blocking receipt of any messages sent by the messenger molecules referred to above?


Option C states that such a medication needs several years of waiting time to be developed and manufactured. We are not concerned about finding a flaw just in the making of the medication.
We are interested in finding a flaw in the plan of developing a medication that would prevent asthma attacks by blocking receipt of any messages sent by the messenger molecules.

Solution

Passage Analysis

Certain messenger molecules fight damage to the lungs from noxious air by telling the muscle cells encircling the lungs’ airways to contract.
A type of molecules called messenger molecules prevent lung damage from polluted air by communicating to the muscle cells around human lung airways to draw in or shrink.

This partially seals off the lungs.
This response of the airways to the lungs closes access of the bad air to the lungs partially

An asthma attack occurs when the messenger molecules are activated unnecessarily, in response to harmless things like pollen or household dust.
But if these messenger molecules get active even without noxious air around, but in the presence of harmless substances like household dust or pollen , that can trigger an asthma attack.

Question Stem

Which of the following, if true, points to the most serious flaw of a plan to develop a medication that would prevent asthma attacks by blocking receipt of any messages sent by the messenger molecules referred to above?

We need a new information which acts as flaw of a plan.
The plan is to develop a medicine that can prevent asthma attacks by blocking the action of messenger molecules at the muscle cells around the lungs airways and prevent shrinking and thus blocking the path.

Pre-thinking

The action of messenger molecules is controlled by the planned medication. But we know that these molecules help us in noxious atmospheric conditions. What if the medication leads to a person taking in too much noxious air and develop complications due to that? So the plan's flaw is that it inhibits the good side of messenger molecules as well.

Option Analysis

(A) Researchers do not yet know how the body produces the messenger molecules that trigger asthma attacks.
How the body produces messenger molecules does not affect us. Only what they do at the lung pathways does. Hence this is an out of scope answer.

(B) Researchers do not yet know what makes one person’s messenger molecules more easily activated than another’s.
Difference between personal responses to the medicine is also not our topic here. We only need to care about the common mechanism of action.

(C) Such a medication would not become available for several years, because of long lead times in both development and manufacture.
We are concerned only about the flaw in the plan. When it will actually materialize is out of scope for us.

(D) Such a medication would be unable to distinguish between messages triggered by pollen and household dust and messages triggered by noxious air.
This is the correct answer because it correctly identifies the flaw we pre thought. The usage of the medicine may become harmful for people exposed to places with polluted air because the medication has no mechanism to identify the reason of the messenger molecule action.

(E) Such a medication would be a preventative only and would be unable to alleviate an asthma attack once it had started
The purpose of the medication is out of scope for us. All we need to bother about is whether this plan is a valid one or not.

Hence the answer is choice D.

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.