Though sucking zinc lozenges has been promoted as treatment for the

A. Expiremental subjects who used the zinc gel not only had colds of shorter duration but also had less sever symptoms than did those who used a gel that did not contain zinc. [We don't have info on other type of gel. We need to compare the results of zinc based gel and lozenges. Out of scope choice. Incorrect]

E. Drug company researchers experimenting with nasal spray beased on zinc have found that it has much the same effect on colds as the gel does. [We don't have info on other type of nasal sprays. This option is just to mislead us. Out of scope choice. Incorrect]

wats the question source? I too picked 'A'. Argument contradict lozenges effectiveness to nasal zinc gel which reduces duration of cold, its effectiveness is due to virus concentrated in nose.
zinc gel effectiveness could be weaken by subject experiment already had cold of shorter duration, hence the gel has no effect evn applied to nose.

Not sure how 'C' weakens this zinc gel's effectiveness, it hurts lozenges effectiveness. does anyone have a strong reason??

can someone provide a detailed explanation on how (C) is correct and (A) is incorrect.

A is incorrect because IT DOENSOT weaken the arg
C simply provides an alternate explanation for the occurence

Hi seekmba,

A. Expiremental subjects who used the zinc gel not only had colds of shorter duration but also had less sever symptoms than did those who used a gel that did not contain zinc. - Here, the stmt compares the zinc gel with another zinc gel and not the zinc lozenges. The first part of the stmt does allure you into selecting this option but the latter part clearly deviates.

C. to make them palatable, zinc lozenges generally contains other ingredients, such as citric acid,, that can interfer with the chemical activity of zinc - here, it clearly specifies the ineffectiveness of zinc in the lozenges against the zinc in the and thus weakens the conclusion

Hope that helps,
meshtrap

The argument is not that zinc is effective or that one is more effective than the other. The argument is that the gel is more effective than the lozenges because the cold virus is more in the nose than the mouth.

"the greater the effectiveness of the gel must be due to the fact that cold virus tend to concentrate in the nose, not the mouth."

C is the best answer because it gives a different possible reason why the gel is more effective. It's because they add stuff that interfers the the chemical activity of the zinc.

I don't understand how "A" could be correct.

Very difficult to understand exactly why c is correct.

Conclusion
Cause: cold virus tend to concentrate in the nose

Effect: gel is more effective

Answer choice (C) weaken this conclusion by suggesting an alternate cause: logzenges is less effective against cold virus

Posted from my mobile device

IMO C is correct.

The conclusion that effectiveness of gel is because it is directly applied at nose, is weakend by the statement, that in "zinc lozenges" there are some substances along with zinc which can reduce the affect zinc would have.

IMO C !

C is my choice because it gives another reason to show why Zinc losenges is ineffective.

A strengthens the argument by showing that zinc gel was effective.
E strengthens the conclusion by showing that nasal treatment is superior to ingestion through mouth.

Hope this clarified your doubt. Feel free to PM me if not understood.

Argument here is old virus tend to concentrate in the nose, not the mouth.

A does not work because, here we are not comparing nasal vs mouth zinc. Here it is basically between gel with zinc and non zinc.

E does not work because, here again comparison between gel and spray, not between nose and mouth gels.

Though sucking zinc lozenges has been promoted as treatment for the common cold, research has revealed no consistent effect. Recently,however, a zinc gel applied nasally has been shown
to greatly reduce the duration of colds. Since the gel contains zinc in the same form and concentration as the lozenges, the greater the effectiveness of the gel must be due to the fact that cold virus tend to concentrate in the nose, not the mouth.

Which of the following, if true , most seriously weakens the argument?

The argument is that zinc works better in the nose than in the mouth because the cold virus concentrates in the nose. The statement that weakens the argument will provide a different explanation for the efficacy of zinc in the nose compared to the mouth.

A. Experimental subjects who used the zinc gel not only had colds of shorter duration but also had less sever symptoms than did those who used a gel that did not contain zinc.out of scope - We are not interested in comparing zinc and no zinc, nor the specific effects of zinc.
B. The mechanism by which zinc effects the viruses that caused the common cold has not been conclusively established. The mechanism of zinc is out of scope.
C. to make them palatable, zinc lozenges generally contains other ingredients, such as citric acid, that can interfere with the chemical activity of zinc. This provides an alternative explanation for zinc's increased efficacy in the nose compared to the mouth. In the mouth zinc's efficacy is reduced by chemical activity with citric acid.
D. no Zinc based remedy can have any effect unless it is taken or applied within 48 hrs of the onset of cold symptoms. The time frame in which zinc-based remedies are applied is out of scope.
E. Drug company researchers experimenting with nasal spray based on zinc have found that it has much the same effect on colds as the gel does. There's no mention here of oral zinc remedies. This is only comparing two ways to apply zinc to the nose.

Consider a situation where one can either chew Vicks lozenges which treats the cold in say 5 days, versus applying the Vicks gel directly on nose which treats the cold in 1 day. Now if everything being equal, this is what strengthens the argument which states how gel works better because it is directly applied on the area where virus colony is vis-a-vis lozenges which have to work harder for the zinc, the slayer of virus, to be transported through a complex mechanism from mouth to nose.

However, there is a catch. The special additive in the lozenges reduces the efficacy of zinc in it. Hence, it takes 5 days and not 1 day when compared to gel. This additive merely improves taste but as a side effect, reduces efficacy of zinc in it. Which means if we add this same additive to gel, the gel will also take 5 days to treat cold.

Thus, the real difference lies in the presence or absence of an additive and NOT in different areas of application of zinc based medicines.

Correct Answer: C
The argument claims that the zinc gel is more effective than the lozenges because cold viruses concentrate in the nose rather than in the mouth. However, if there is another explanation for why the lozenges are less effective, then the conclusion is weakened.

Option C states that zinc lozenges contain other ingredients (like citric acid) that interfere with the chemical activity of zinc. This suggests that the lozenges may be ineffective not because of where they are applied (mouth vs. nose), but because their ingredients reduce zinc’s effectiveness.

Thus, the argument's reasoning is weakened—the greater effectiveness of the nasal gel might not be due to the location of the virus but rather due to differences in formulation.

Why the Other Options Are Incorrect:
A. Experimental subjects who used the zinc gel not only had colds of shorter duration but also had less severe symptoms than did those who used a gel that did not contain zinc.
This compares zinc gel vs. non-zinc gel, rather than zinc gel vs. zinc lozenges.
It shows that zinc gel is effective, but it does not weaken the argument that its effectiveness is due to where it is applied.
Eliminated because it does not compare lozenges and gel, which is necessary to weaken the argument.
B. The mechanism by which zinc affects the viruses that cause the common cold has not been conclusively established.
The argument does not rely on knowing the exact mechanism of zinc's action, only on where the virus is concentrated.
Even if the mechanism is unclear, the nasal gel still showed better results, so this does not weaken the argument.
Eliminated because the argument does not depend on understanding zinc’s mechanism.
D. No zinc-based remedy can have any effect unless it is taken or applied within 48 hours of the onset of cold symptoms.
This just states that timing matters for zinc treatments, but it applies to both the lozenges and the gel.
It does not explain why the lozenges were less effective than the gel, which is the argument’s main point.
Eliminated because it does not create a distinction between the effectiveness of lozenges and gel.
E. Drug company researchers experimenting with a nasal spray based on zinc have found that it has much the same effect on colds as the gel does.
This just confirms that another nasal form of zinc is effective, which does not weaken the argument that nasal application is the key factor.
It does not challenge the claim that the lozenges are less effective because they are taken orally.
Eliminated because it does not address why lozenges are less effective.