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.
05 Jun 2025, 07:44
Kudos
Bookmarks
C
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
35%
(medium)
Question Stats:
83% (02:36) correct
17%
(03:05)
wrong
based on 54
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Several disabled human patients have used such devices—including those made by Neuralink, a firm founded by Mr Musk—to control computers with impressive precision. But that is merely a proof of concept: Neuralink was founded because, in Mr Musk’s view, only a human brain that can achieve “symbiosis with artificial intelligence” can hope to remain relevant in a world of intelligent machines. Plenty of people seem to want to try out these ideas. Humans have always looked for ways to boost their powers, from mass education to the wristwatch. If taking a brain-boosting chemical sounds exotic or implausible, consider that the world produces around 11m tonnes of coffee annually, and not just because people like the taste. The market for supplements already shifts $485bn-worth of pills every year, despite little evidence that many of them do much good. The human-enhancement project suffers from two related problems. The first is that it is a baffling mix of cutting-edge science and old-fashioned snake oil. Some of its ideas look genuinely promising, some are honest long shots and many are designed to fleece gullible customers of their money.
Which of the following, if true, most significantly weakens the argument that human-enhancement technologies are likely to obtain widespread adoption?
A) The high costs associated with advanced enhancement methods like Neuralink implants will require significant investment from venture capitalists.
B) Coffee consumption serves primarily as a mild stimulant and does not alter fundamental cognitive abilities, unlike true brain-boosting chemicals.
C) The supplement market thrives largely due to placebo effects and marketing, but consumers are far less willing to use unproven methods when permanent bodily modifications or significant health risks are involved.
D) Several countries have proposed bills to ban gene editing and implantation procedures for enhancement purposes.
E) Clinical trials show that metformin, while beneficial for diabetes, has no measurable effect on lifespan enhancement in healthy humans.
A) High costs are already acknowledged; this might explain delays but doesn't argue against eventual widespread adoption if demand exists.
B) This actually strengthens the argument by implying brain-boosting chemicals may have more appeal since coffee is insufficient; thus, not weakening.
C) This weakens by contrasting supplement usage (low risk, accepted despite inefficacy) with higher-stakes enhancements, suggesting demand might not transfer to risky/unproven methods even if people use supplements.
D) Regulatory bans could hinder adoption, but the passage suggests the industry already faces such risks. It's less directly tied to consumer demand.
E) This weakens metformin specifically but not the broader argument about other techniques like BCIs or gene editing.
The argument for widespread adoption relies partly on an analogy to supplements/coffee, implying willingness to adopt enhancement techniques. Option C directly challenges this analogy by highlighting that supplement acceptance (low risk) doesn't extend to high-risk enhancements involving bodily modifications, significantly weakening the prediction. Distractor A is plausible but less impactful; B strengthens. Difficulty arises from nuanced interpretation of analogy scope and consumer risk tolerance.
Which of the following, if true, most significantly weakens the argument that human-enhancement technologies are likely to obtain widespread adoption?
A) The high costs associated with advanced enhancement methods like Neuralink implants will require significant investment from venture capitalists.
B) Coffee consumption serves primarily as a mild stimulant and does not alter fundamental cognitive abilities, unlike true brain-boosting chemicals.
C) The supplement market thrives largely due to placebo effects and marketing, but consumers are far less willing to use unproven methods when permanent bodily modifications or significant health risks are involved.
D) Several countries have proposed bills to ban gene editing and implantation procedures for enhancement purposes.
E) Clinical trials show that metformin, while beneficial for diabetes, has no measurable effect on lifespan enhancement in healthy humans.
Show SpoilerHints
Focus on the analogous reasoning used in the passage. The comparison between consumption habits and high-tech enhancements is the key.
Show SpoilerExplanations
A) High costs are already acknowledged; this might explain delays but doesn't argue against eventual widespread adoption if demand exists.
B) This actually strengthens the argument by implying brain-boosting chemicals may have more appeal since coffee is insufficient; thus, not weakening.
C) This weakens by contrasting supplement usage (low risk, accepted despite inefficacy) with higher-stakes enhancements, suggesting demand might not transfer to risky/unproven methods even if people use supplements.
D) Regulatory bans could hinder adoption, but the passage suggests the industry already faces such risks. It's less directly tied to consumer demand.
E) This weakens metformin specifically but not the broader argument about other techniques like BCIs or gene editing.
The argument for widespread adoption relies partly on an analogy to supplements/coffee, implying willingness to adopt enhancement techniques. Option C directly challenges this analogy by highlighting that supplement acceptance (low risk) doesn't extend to high-risk enhancements involving bodily modifications, significantly weakening the prediction. Distractor A is plausible but less impactful; B strengthens. Difficulty arises from nuanced interpretation of analogy scope and consumer risk tolerance.
Archived Topic
Hi there,
This topic has been closed and archived due to inactivity or violation of community quality standards. No more replies are possible here.
Where to now? Join ongoing discussions on thousands of quality questions in our Critical Reasoning (CR) Forum
Still interested in this question? Check out the "Best Topics" block below for a better discussion on this exact question, as well as several more related questions.
Thank you for understanding, and happy exploring!
Moderators:
189 posts
