The symptoms that US president Zachary Taylor began showing five days

The symptoms that US president Zachary Taylor began showing five days before his death are consistent with arsenic poisoning. Recent examinations of Taylor's bones, however, revealed levels of arsenic comparable to those found in the bones of Taylor's contemporaries. These levels are much lower than the levels of arsenic that remain in the bones of arsenic poisoning victims who live for more than a day after ingesting a lethal does of the poison.

Which of the following is most strongly supported by the statements given?


Question type- Inference
So remember to stick to information given in the argument . Answer should be supported by the argument .


(A) The symptoms that Taylor began showing five days before his death are consistent with poisoning other than arsenic poisoning

Argument no where discusses about poisoning other than arsenic. So we will find no support for this statement from the argument. Hence this cannot be our inference.So Eliminate A

(B) Taylor's death was not the result of arsenic poisoning

-This can be tempting ans choice. But remember we need support from the argument for this statement to be our ans.
Argument clearly says in first line itself that " The symptoms five days before his death are consistent with arsenic poisoning" Its clear that argument is not supporting that "Taylor's death was not result of arsenic" when it clearly says that symptoms were consistent with arsenic poisoning , it cannot contradict the premise info. So Eliminate B

(C) The symptoms that Taylor began showing five days before his death were not caused by a lethal dose of arsenic

Yes- This can be inferred. Read the last statement of the argument. Last statement says "These levels are much lower than the levels of arsenic that remain in the bones of arsenic poisoning victims who live for more than a day after ingesting a lethal dose of the poison." It supports our ans choice. IF levels of arsenic in bones were lower than what it would have been if lethal dose of arsenic was taken when person lives more than a day clearly helps us infer that death was not caused by lethal dose of arsenic.
So CORRECT

(D) The symptoms that Taylor began showing five days before his death grew more severe each day
-No where it is discussed that symptoms were severe. Only first line in the argument talks about symptoms . So out of scope - Eliminate

(E) It is unusual for a person who has ingested a lethal dose of arsenic to live for more than a day
- Again last statement talks about possibility of living more than a day where level of arsenic found in bones is of certain level. Directly contradicts given information .Hence Eliminate.

Hence ANS CHOICE C- IS CORRECT

Hope this helps

Premises:
1. The symptoms that US president Zachary Taylor began showing five days before his death are consistent with arsenic poisoning.
2. Levels of arsenic are much lower than the levels of arsenic that remain in the bones of arsenic poisoning victims who live for more than a day after ingesting a lethal does of the poison. --> Levels of arsenic of ZT is not a lethal dose because if it were, he could not live for five days.
--> We expect a conclusion that we can find evidences based on those premises.

A. The symptoms that Taylor began showing five days before his death are consistent with poisoning other than arsenic poisoning
--> No evidence from premises

B. Taylor's death was not the result of arsenic poisoning
--> Trap. From "ZT and the victims who live for more than a day had different levels of arsenic" we can not conclude that arsenic poisoning is not the cause. It might, it might be not.

C. The symptoms that Taylor began showing five days before his death were not caused by a lethal dose of arsenic.
--> Correct. We can find evidence in the 2nd premise.

D. The symptoms that Taylor began showing five days before his death grew more severe each day
--> No evidence from premises

E. It is unusual for a person who has ingested a lethal dose of arsenic to love for more than a day
--> Out of scope

I didnt understand the meaning that lethal dose victims can live for more than a day after ingesting lethal poison?
Even US president showed symptoms 5 days before the death which means he live for more than a day?

a detailed solution to this nice official question will be much appreciated. thanks
GMATNinja, IanStewart, KarishmaB, DmitryFarber, AndrewN, MartyTargetTestPrep, ScottTargetTestPrep, BrentGMATPrepNow, RonPurewal, GMATNinjaTwo, KyleWiddison, DavidTutorexamPAL, MarkSullivan, AjiteshArun, EMPOWERgmatRichC, ThatDudeKnows, ReedArnoldMPREP, mikemcgarry, sayantanc2k, TommyWallach, Testluv

The symptoms that US president Zachary Taylor began showing five days before his death are consistent with arsenic poisoning. Recent examinations of Taylor's bones, however, revealed levels of arsenic comparable to those found in the bones of Taylor's contemporaries. These levels are much lower than the levels of arsenic that remain in the bones of arsenic poisoning victims who live for more than a day after ingesting a lethal does of the poison.

The president showed symptoms that were similar to those of Arsenic poisoning for five days before his death.
This increases the probability of Mr Taylor dying as a result of the arsenic poisoning.
However, the examinations of the bones show two results that go against the above probability. One, the levels of arsenic remain the same as those in bones of his contemporaries, and second, the levels are lower than would be in a person who has stayed alive for more than one day after poisoning.
It doesn’t matter if we do not know how the quantity of arsenic actually varies with days after ingesting a lethal dose. But, we can surely say from argument that more the days, more should be the level. The other inference is that Mr Taylor was not alive for more than a day after ingesting a lethal dose of poisoning, if at all he died due to arsenic poisoning.

Which of the following is most strongly supported by the statements given?


Nowhere the symptoms shown have been questioned. They are consistent with arsenic poisoning and we cannot comment on consistency with other types of poisoning.


Could be a very tempting answer. But what we can infer for sure is that he did not live for more than a day after the lethal dose if his death was result of arsenic poisoning.
The possibility of his dying within a day of ingesting of lethal dose of arsenic poisoning remains and is same as possibility of his dying due to heart failure or due to intake of any other substance. .


The symptoms were similar to those of arsenic poisoning, but were not caused by a lethal dose of arsenic poisoning. He would not have remained alive with these symptoms for five days. If the symptoms were indeed those of arsenic poisoning, the levels of arsenic in bones would have been more than were actually found.
Correct.


The para does not give any information on severity of symptoms.


The para nowhere suggests that.

C is the correct answer.

Option Elimination -

(A) The symptoms that Taylor began showing five days before his death are consistent with poisoning other than arsenic poisoning - no. It's opposite to the fact stated in the premise. Wrong.

(B) Taylor's death was not the result of arsenic poisoning - Might be true. Maybe it was a result of a low dose. We don't know. Wrong

(C) The symptoms that Taylor began showing five days before his death were not caused by a lethal dose of arsenic - exactly. The last sentence clearly says "These levels are much lower than the levels of arsenic that remain in the bones of arsenic poisoning victims who live for more than a day after ingesting a LETHAL dose of the poison." So certainly it was a lower dose.

(D) The symptoms that Taylor began showing five days before his death grew more severe each day - we don't know. Out of scope.

(E) It is unusual for a person who has ingested a lethal dose of arsenic to live for more than a day - opposite to what is stated in the last premise. "victims who live for more than a day" - it can be 2 or 2 or 4 or 6 or more days.