The only purpose for which a particular type of tape is needed is to hold certain surgical wounds closed for ten days—the maximum time such wounds need tape. Newtape is a new brand of this type of tape. Newtape’s salespeople claim that Newtape will improve healing because Newtape adheres twice as long as the currently used tape does.

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


(A) Most surgical wounds take about ten days to heal.

(B) Most surgical tape is purchased by hospitals and clinics rather than by individual surgeons.

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

(D) Neither Newtape nor the currently used tape adheres well to skin that has not been cleaned.

(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.

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.

Meh: "Newtape’s salespeople claim that Newtape will improve healing." Healing is dependent on holding time (max needed - 10 days).

"Better" is sort of implied, but we have to think objectively.


No, they do not. They say it will hold twice as long. We're never actually given the amount of time that the current tape holds, only the max amount of time required to complete healing.


Sure, but none of the answers given say this. E talks about 'specially treated' skin, and says NewTape is only half as good as current tape, but we're never told what the current tape's performance is on that chemically treated skin (or otherwise, for that matter). Like in my last post, what if it's 80 days? Then NewTape holds for 40 days, both are sufficient for healing.

C is the only answer that gives us the crucial puzzle piece: how long does the current tape hold? (and is it equal to, greater than or less than 10 days?) Turns out it's >10 days, rendering NewTape redundant (and possibly annoying).

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.
_________________

So what is the claim of new tape’s salespeople? Newtape will improve healing. Lets call adhesiveness of old tape x. new tape has it 2x. but X is sufficient to hold the tape for 10 days, which is sufficient time to heal a wound.

Is increasing the adhesiveness to 2x is going to heal the wound any faster ? Wound will heal in 10 days. keeping healed wound taped for 10 more days is not going to solve anything at all.C is on the same line. C is the correct option.
_________________

Could you please explain why A actually improve the claim? If the wounds only take exactly 10 days to heal, isn't it strengthen the usefulness of the used tape?

Can someone please explain me why option E is wrong?

Hi,

Perfect explanation! Thank you very much!

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?
_________________

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.