Tape is used to hold wounds closed for ten days the maximum time such wounds need tape.

Claim:Newtape will improve healing because Newtape adheres twice as long as the currently used tape does.

How do we weaken this!!!!

because its already mentioned that Max time to hold a wound is 10days. if we can prove that the present tape holds good for 10days, and even though the newtape is capable of holding wound for longer time its of no use.

Option C does it.....
C)The currently used tape’s adhesiveness is more than sufficient to hold wounds closed for ten days.


wats the OA

I'd agree with this.

The claim is that it "will prove healing."

Improving healing is based on 1) how long the wound takes to heal and 2) how long the tape holds.
The sentence says that the max healing time is 10 days.

So a) would actually improve the claim because it undermines the "max 10 days" thing, suggesting a potential use for the new tape.
b) As someone said, is out of scope.
d) and e) are referencing situations (clean skin, chemically treated skin) that are not referenced in the opening sentence, and one can assume such situations are irrelevant or redundant (what kind of doctor is going to dress a dirty wound?)

c) doesn't contradict the "max 10 days" and it goes on to state that current tape will hold for 10 days or more, meaning the new tape would act no differently, thereby NOT improving (or deterring) healing.

So by logic AND processes of elimination it's gotta be C.

Confusion should be between C and E.

E is incorrect because it is trying to break the Facts. Remember, in an Argument, a Fact is a source of truth which cannot be broken down.

Option C clearly says that the current adhesiveness is more than sufficient, so why do we need an increase in adhesiveness. Hence, a weakener and a correct answer.
_________________

the claim is that the adhesiveness is stronger and that the wound will heal faster. The question asks us to undermine the claims A and/or B. So shouldn't we choose an answer choice that undermines the claim factually rather than undermining the claims effectiveness?

Hey shivamtibrewala ,

Remember that on GMAT, breaking a premise is STRICTLY not allowed. Facts/premises are the source of truth on which the entire argument holds.

Only thing that you can break is the Conclusion.

Does that make sense?
_________________

GMATNinja VeritasKarishma MentorTutoring
I am unable to eliminate A and E.
Option A-Most surgical wounds take about ten days to heal.
If surgical wounds take 10 days to heal, then whether someone uses Newtape or old, it doesn't matter.
Thus Newtape’s salespeople claim that Newtape will improve healing is wrong.

Option E-Newtape’s adhesion to skin that has been coated with a special chemical preparation is only half as good as the currently used tape’s adhesion to such coated skin.
Why Salespeople made the claim at firstplace ? because they believe Newtape adheres twice as long as the currently used tape does.
But now option E weaken that reason.
Hence E can be correct.

Experts Please explain.

Hello again, Harsh2111s. The key here is to appreciate that the exact claim says that Newtape will improve healing because Newtape adheres twice as long as the currently used tape does. Choice (A) does not address tape (in a tape-to-tape comparison) in any way, and what does about ten days mean anyway? Does that mean 8-12 days? 9-11? Does it mean that Newtape number-crunchers took the available data of the healing times of all surgical patients treated with the currently used tape and averaged the figures out to arrive at about ten days? In either scenario, the claim could hold. Choice (A) is gone.

Meanwhile, choice (E) introduces a complete distraction in this special chemical preparation. Does the passage mention that post-op treatment of surgical incisions involves dressing the skin with this chemical preparation? No. It is only your mind trying to come up with a reasonable assumption—something that can get you into trouble on CR questions in general. If you want to get to the heart of the matter, you have to stick with what the passage tells you. In choice (C), notice the qualifier more than sufficient. If the current tape is more than sufficient for its purpose over the ten-day period in question, the very ten-day period that the passage marks as the maximum time [surgical] wounds need tape, then a tape that lasts longer is no better for its intended purpose. It will not improve healing any more on the basis of its adhesive longevity.

I hope that helps. If you have further questions, feel free to ask.

- Andrew
_________________

Why is A wrong? It says most wounds take 10 days to heal, doesnt it mean that the new tape will not improve healing, as tape that can adhere to skin longer than 10 days is not needed?

i shortlisted A, C and E in my first reading. But I chose C in the end because C is better option than A.

Read the question again:
Which of the following statements, if true, would most seriously call into question the claim made by Newtape’s salespeople?

If no C option, I could consider A.

Now to attack A:
my 2 cents:

(A) Most surgical wounds take about ten days to heal.
issue1: about 10 days? what if it takes 11 days then new tape would be much better, is not it?
Issue2: Most wounds: what if some wounds takes longer then still new tape would be better

Our question: weaken the conclusion
But 2 issues are tiled towards strengthening the conclusion.
So we can reject A in presence of C.

(C) The currently used tape’s adhesiveness is more than sufficient to hold wounds closed for ten days.
when you can resolve the issue with current taps and is more than enough, what make sense to buy a better tape? It would be useless
Thus weakening the conclusion.
No ifs and buts in C.

I hope it helps.

Notice the passage says 'the only purpose for which a particular type of tape is needed is to hold certain surgical wounds closed for ten days.' Therefore, the argument only pertains to a particular type of surgical wound.

Choice A talks about most surgical wounds, but we're not interested in what happens with most surgical wounds -- only a particular type of surgical wood that takes a maximum of ten days to heal.

Choice E talks about a particular circumstance in which Newtape's adhesion is not as good as the currently used tape's adhesion. Does this weaken Newtape's claim? Newtape can still improve healing overall -- just not in this particular circumstance. E is out.

Choice C tells us that the currently used tape's adhesiveness is more than sufficient for its needs. Perfect.
_________________

I understand why option C is correct, but can't understand why exactly option E is incorrect. Please help

Hey!

I don't think I'll be saying anything that hasn't already been said by a couple of users above, but essentially (E) is wrong because it attempts to weaken the argument's conclusion by citing a particular circumstance in which the adhesive isn't as effective as the competitor's withoutestablishing whether that circumstance is in any way related to the tape's ability to aid in the healing process. Unless we assume that this special chemical solution is a necessary or at least commonly relied upon part of the healing process, the lowered effectiveness of the adhesive in the presence of that special chemical solution is irrelevant to the argument's claim.

Let's look at this extremely common wrong-answer type (the "requires an extra assumption" type) in a different context. Imagine there was an argument that claimed that Tire A was able to help a car come to a stop on roads twice as fast as Tire B. The argument might claim, therefore, that Tire A will help to prevent auto accidents better than Tire B. A "requires an extra assumption" answer might say something to the effect of "In tests, it has been shown that Tire A is only half as effective as Tire B at stopping cars driving through Jello." Certainly that's a disadvantage to Tire A, but without any statements establishing that the roads in Tire A's sales area are routinely slathered with Jello, it's hard to say that this would constitute a practical disadvantage for Tire A.
_________________

Hello experts
I'm confused between choice-C and choice-E
both are weakner, I've to sort out which one is a strong weakner.

CLAIM -
Newtape’s salespeople claim that Newtape will improve healing because Newtape adheres twice as long as the currently used tape does.
Q -
Which of the following statements, if true, would most seriously call into question the claim made by Newtape’s salespeople?

here, I have to weaken the claim. the claim - Newtape will improve healing

Choice-C :

current one : already sufficient. = 100%
New one : it's better than current one to hold on. = 100% .BUT NO IMPROVEMENT. (Improvement = 0)

Yes, it definitely weakens the claim

Choice-E


current one : adhesion is better - let say 90%
New one : adhesion is half of current one - 45%

this choice seems to show NEGATIVE improvement. (Improvement = -ve)


I selected choice-E.
-> from previous replies on this thread, I can see that some members have quoted Choice-E wrong because it talks about a specific case but still it weakens the claim.


How to reject choice-E on solid grounds in this Q ?