GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 19 Feb 2019, 09:59

### 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

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

## Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in February
PrevNext
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
272829303112
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
242526272812
Open Detailed Calendar
• ### Free GMAT Prep Hour

February 20, 2019

February 20, 2019

08:00 PM EST

09:00 PM EST

Strategies and techniques for approaching featured GMAT topics. Wednesday, February 20th at 8 PM EST

February 21, 2019

February 21, 2019

10:00 PM PST

11:00 PM PST

Kick off your 2019 GMAT prep with a free 7-day boot camp that includes free online lessons, webinars, and a full GMAT course access. Limited for the first 99 registrants! Feb. 21st until the 27th.

# Thousands who suffer heart attacks each year die before

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 12 Oct 2011
Posts: 179
Re: Thousands who suffer heart attacks each year die before  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 Jan 2012, 21:42
Clearly A. If people die en route to the hospital, then the drug is futile.
_________________

Consider KUDOS if you feel the effort's worth it

Intern
Joined: 25 Sep 2010
Posts: 48
Schools: HBS, LBS, Wharton, Kelloggs, Booth
Re: Thousands who suffer heart attacks each year die before  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Jan 2012, 00:57
The new blood clot dissolving agent is advantageous because it will help the patient before he/she reaches the hospital. Any statement that weakens the conclusion would state that new blood clot dissolving agent may not be helpful before the patient reaches the hospital, precisely what A states.
(A) The new agent must be administered by a team of doctors in a hospital or clinic setting.
(B) Many heart attack victims die unnecessarily even though they reach a hospital or clinic in time. Irrelevant. We're not talking about ppl dying unnecessarily.
(C) The new agent can be effectively administered prior to the victim's arrival at a hospital or clinic. This statement actually STRENGTHENS the argument.
(D) The Food and Drug Administration has already approved agents that are at least as effective as the new drug in dissolving blood clots. No such comparison made. Irrelevant.
(E) The new blood clot dissolving agent causes kidney damage and irregular heart rates in some patients. Weakens, but does not address the conclusion. A seems to be the best.
Intern
Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Posts: 7

### Show Tags

02 Dec 2012, 11:22
spriya wrote:
fiesta wrote:
Thousands who suffer heart attacks each year die before reaching a hospital or clinic where they can benefit from the drugs that dissolve clots in coronary arteries. The Food and Drug Administration recently approved a new blood clot dissolving agent, which a spokesman claimed could save the lives of many people who would otherwise join this group of heart attack victims.
Q: Which of the following, if true, would seriously weaken the argument above?
A. The new agent must be administered by a team of doctors in a hospital or clinic setting.
B. Many heart attack victims die unnecessarily even though they reach a hospital or clinic in time
C. The new agent can be effectively administered prior to the victim's arrival at a hospital or clinic
D. The Food and Drug Administration has already approved agents that are at least as effective as the new drug in dissolving blood clots
E.The new blood clot dissolving agent causes kidney damage and irregular heart rates in some patients.

A. The new agent must be administered by a team of doctors in a hospital or clinic setting. -> this is IMO answer since if the drug needs to be given in hospital then again the patients need to reach the hospitals so theres no use of such drugs
B. Many heart attack victims die unnecessarily even though they reach a hospital or clinic in time -> irrelevant
C. The new agent can be effectively administered prior to the victim's arrival at a hospital or clinic -> this strengthens
D. The Food and Drug Administration has already approved agents that are at least as effective as the new drug in dissolving blood clots -> this strengthens
E.The new blood clot dissolving agent causes kidney damage and irregular heart rates in some patients. -> this is side effects but here evidence is failure to reach hospitals which is the cause of death

Hello my friend!!!

Could you please explain why D is incorrect.
I don't see how it strenthens it since I am interpreting the D as following:
"The Food and Drug Administration has already approved agents, which is also effective" BUT the situation remain the same, meaning people are still dieing before reaching to hospital, even though the effective method has existed before the introduction of agent. I thought D is superior than A.
Thank you!
Intern
Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Posts: 7
Re: Thousands who suffer heart attacks each year die before  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Dec 2012, 15:13
Hi folks!!!

Could you please explain why D is incorrect.
I don't see how it strenthens it since I am interpreting the D as following:
"The Food and Drug Administration has already approved agents, which is also effective" BUT the situation remain the same, meaning people are still dieing before reaching to hospital, even though the effective method has existed before the introduction of agent. I thought D is superior than A.
Thank you!
Senior Manager
Joined: 13 Aug 2012
Posts: 420
Concentration: Marketing, Finance
GPA: 3.23
Re: Thousands who suffer heart attacks each year die before  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Feb 2013, 03:16
fiesta wrote:
Thousands who suffer heart attacks each year die before reaching a hospital or clinic where they can benefit from the drugs that dissolve clots in coronary arteries. The Food and Drug Administration recently approved a new blood clot dissolving agent, which a spokesman claimed could save the lives of many people who would otherwise join this group of heart attack victims.

Which of the following, if true, would seriously weaken the argument above?

(A) The new agent must be administered by a team of doctors in a hospital or clinic setting.
(B) Many heart attack victims die unnecessarily even though they reach a hospital or clinic in time
(C) The new agent can be effectively administered prior to the victim's arrival at a hospital or clinic
(D) The Food and Drug Administration has already approved agents that are at least as effective as the new drug in dissolving blood clots
(E) The new blood clot dissolving agent causes kidney damage and irregular heart rates in some patients.

A is correct. Thousands die before reaching hospital. If the agent still needs to be administered in hospitals then, still thousands will die.
B. we need something that weakens the claim about the new agent.. This doesn't weaken the argument.
C. Strengthens the argument. Incorrect.
D. Other drugs doesn't hurt the argument
E. if this is true, maybe 1 out of every hours and die because of that.. Still those saved is significant...

_________________

Impossible is nothing to God.

Manager
Joined: 25 Jul 2012
Posts: 67
Location: United States
Re: Thousands who suffer heart attacks each year die before  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Feb 2013, 16:44
GMATtaker777 wrote:
Hi folks!!!

Could you please explain why D is incorrect.
I don't see how it strengthens it since I am interpreting the D as following:
"The Food and Drug Administration has already approved agents, which is also effective" BUT the situation remain the same, meaning people are still dieing before reaching to hospital, even though the effective method has existed before the introduction of agent. I thought D is superior than A.
Thank you!

Thousands who suffer heart attacks each year die before reaching a hospital or clinic where they can benefit from the drugs that dissolve clots in coronary arteries. The Food and Drug Administration recently approved a new blood clot dissolving agent, which a spokesman claimed could save the lives of many people who would otherwise join this group of heart attack victims.

Which of the following, if true, would seriously weaken the argument above?

What does the argument say? It states in the first sentence that people die before they even reach the hospital (THIS IS KEY). So the FDA has recently approved a new medication which will help these thousands of people who are having heart attacks. The conclusion: the spokesmen CLAIMS (conclusion indicator) that this could save the many lives of these people who are having heart attacks.

"What would totally destroy the conclusion?"
"What additional info will mess up the though process of the argument?"
"What would backfire on the plan?"

(A) The new agent must be administered by a team of doctors in a hospital or clinic setting. correct When first reading this, this looks very attractive to totally destroy the spokesman's conclusion. Think about it, what's the point of the medication if it can only be used in a clinic or a hospital? The first sentence clearly states that people die ON THE WAY to the hospital. So by the time they arrive to hospital, chances are death is upon them.

(D) The Food and Drug Administration has already approved agents that are at least as effective as the new drug in dissolving blood clots incorrect This answer looks attractive as your initial thought probably is "yeah this looks good because if there are already drugs that have the same effect, what's the point?" However, you have to take into consideration the premise and conclusion of the argument. The argument is only talking about the new drug, other drugs would be irrelevant.

Remember weakening questions, a lot of the times, try to trap you with irrelevant information that looks attractive and answers that actually strengthen argument

_________________

If my post has contributed to your learning or teaching in any way, feel free to hit the kudos button ^_^

Manager
Joined: 20 Oct 2013
Posts: 60
Location: United States
Concentration: General Management, Real Estate
Re: Thousands who suffer heart attacks each year die before  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Dec 2013, 06:48
A) Hospital or clinic's setting is required, but many patients die before reaching hospital/clinic => the new agent shouldn't be as effective as claimed

B) This fact doesn't have any impact on the new agent's effect.

C) This stat supports the argument, not weaken.

D) Also do the opposite: support the argument.

E) Even if this choice is true, it requires an assumption "kidney damage and irregular heart rates usually result in heart attacks" to seriously weaken the original argument.

Pick A.
Board of Directors
Status: QA & VA Forum Moderator
Joined: 11 Jun 2011
Posts: 4383
Location: India
GPA: 3.5
Re: Thousands who suffer heart attacks each year die before  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Dec 2013, 10:38
fiesta wrote:
Thousands who suffer heart attacks each year die before reaching a hospital or clinic where they can benefit from the drugs that dissolve clots in coronary arteries. The Food and Drug Administration recently approved a new blood clot dissolving agent, which a spokesman claimed could save the lives of many people who would otherwise join this group of heart attack victims.

this group of heart attack victims. refers to those who suffer heart attacks each year die before reaching a hospital or clinic

1 : Thousands die due to Heart attacks , before reaching hospital.

2 : Heart attack victims treated with drugs dissolving clots.

3 : New drug discovered , to save life of many people

Which of the following, if true, would seriously weaken the argument above?

The condition can be weakened if availability of the Drug is not made available in the open market.

(A) The new agent must be administered by a team of doctors in a hospital or clinic setting. - Available only with medical practitioners.

(B) Many heart attack victims die unnecessarily even though they reach a hospital or clinic in time - Irrelevant.

(C) The new agent can be effectively administered prior to the victim's arrival at a hospital or clinic - Definitely it can , no point exaggerating the same thing , we are trying to weaken the argument here.

(D) The Food and Drug Administration has already approved agents that are at least as effective as the new drug in dissolving blood clots - Contradictory , if they Department has already approved such drugs then it is contardicting the statement :

" The Food and Drug Administration recently approved...... " , " ...they can benefit from the drugs that ... " & " ....could save the lives of many people.... "

(E) The new blood clot dissolving agent causes kidney damage and irregular heart rates in some patients.

Out of scope , we are currently not interested with such issues , we want to save the life of Heart attack Victims.
_________________

Thanks and Regards

Abhishek....

PLEASE FOLLOW THE RULES FOR POSTING IN QA AND VA FORUM AND USE SEARCH FUNCTION BEFORE POSTING NEW QUESTIONS

How to use Search Function in GMAT Club | Rules for Posting in QA forum | Writing Mathematical Formulas |Rules for Posting in VA forum | Request Expert's Reply ( VA Forum Only )

Manager
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 64
Schools: Haas '16, AGSM '16
Re: Thousands who suffer heart attacks each year die before  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Mar 2015, 03:42
CHOICE A

type weaken

conclusion: blood clot agent save life of many people

Assumption: People with heart attack need not to come to hospital or clinic when the heart attack occure.

Weaken: the operation of blood clot agent still need to take victims to hospital or depend on clinic facilities for treatment

Hence choice A is correct

For choice E: it is out of scope concerned by the argument which raise the question whether blood clot agent demolish the need to take victims to the hospital.
Board of Directors
Joined: 17 Jul 2014
Posts: 2587
Location: United States (IL)
Concentration: Finance, Economics
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V30
GPA: 3.92
WE: General Management (Transportation)
Re: Thousands who suffer heart attacks each year die before  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Mar 2016, 15:53
fiesta wrote:
Thousands who suffer heart attacks each year die before reaching a hospital or clinic where they can benefit from the drugs that dissolve clots in coronary arteries. The Food and Drug Administration recently approved a new blood clot dissolving agent, which a spokesman claimed could save the lives of many people who would otherwise join this group of heart attack victims.

Which of the following, if true, would seriously weaken the argument above?

(A) The new agent must be administered by a team of doctors in a hospital or clinic setting.
(B) Many heart attack victims die unnecessarily even though they reach a hospital or clinic in time
(C) The new agent can be effectively administered prior to the victim's arrival at a hospital or clinic
(D) The Food and Drug Administration has already approved agents that are at least as effective as the new drug in dissolving blood clots
(E) The new blood clot dissolving agent causes kidney damage and irregular heart rates in some patients.

the assumption is that the new drug can be taken not necessarily in the hospital.

A negates the assumption. It states that the new drug can be administered only by doctors in hospitals and clinic. so people who have heart attack and not get to hospitals would still die...
Current Student
Joined: 09 Sep 2013
Posts: 83
Schools: HKU MBA"19 (A)
Re: Thousands who suffer heart attacks each year die before  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 May 2016, 02:34
There is an assumption..
The drug will be readily available and can be used easily. means no need of external agent.
attack is coming, attack is felt, meds are taken and "BA-BAAM" attack is gone lets study for gmat again.

so if there is anything that says it needs external(doctor) guidance then you have an answer
SVP
Joined: 12 Dec 2016
Posts: 1592
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V33
GPA: 3.64
Re: Thousands who suffer heart attacks each year die before  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

11 Dec 2017, 20:17
this question is from Kaplan.
The reason why D is not correct is b/c D needs many more assumptions to be a correct answer; such reason is also an important pattern in gmat.
Manager
Joined: 16 Sep 2011
Posts: 96
Re: Thousands who suffer heart attacks each year die before  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 Jan 2018, 23:11
fiesta wrote:
Thousands who suffer heart attacks each year die before reaching a hospital or clinic where they can benefit from the drugs that dissolve clots in coronary arteries. The Food and Drug Administration recently approved a new blood clot dissolving agent, which a spokesman claimed could save the lives of many people who would otherwise join this group of heart attack victims.

Which of the following, if true, would seriously weaken the argument above?

(A) The new agent must be administered by a team of doctors in a hospital or clinic setting.
(B) Many heart attack victims die unnecessarily even though they reach a hospital or clinic in time
(C) The new agent can be effectively administered prior to the victim's arrival at a hospital or clinic
(D) The Food and Drug Administration has already approved agents that are at least as effective as the new drug in dissolving blood clots
(E) The new blood clot dissolving agent causes kidney damage and irregular heart rates in some patients.

Though answer A looks appropriate but the tone of the answer is super strong while the argument is mild with many words such as could/would/can. Isn't going by the tone this looks inappropriate ...need expert guidance
SVP
Joined: 12 Dec 2016
Posts: 1592
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V33
GPA: 3.64
Re: Thousands who suffer heart attacks each year die before  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Jan 2018, 12:03
pk123 wrote:
fiesta wrote:
Thousands who suffer heart attacks each year die before reaching a hospital or clinic where they can benefit from the drugs that dissolve clots in coronary arteries. The Food and Drug Administration recently approved a new blood clot dissolving agent, which a spokesman claimed could save the lives of many people who would otherwise join this group of heart attack victims.

Which of the following, if true, would seriously weaken the argument above?

(A) The new agent must be administered by a team of doctors in a hospital or clinic setting.
(B) Many heart attack victims die unnecessarily even though they reach a hospital or clinic in time
(C) The new agent can be effectively administered prior to the victim's arrival at a hospital or clinic
(D) The Food and Drug Administration has already approved agents that are at least as effective as the new drug in dissolving blood clots
(E) The new blood clot dissolving agent causes kidney damage and irregular heart rates in some patients.

Though answer A looks appropriate but the tone of the answer is super strong while the argument is mild with many words such as could/would/can. Isn't going by the tone this looks inappropriate ...need expert guidance

you mean A has the extreme word "must"? Well, if so, in CR, tone is not counted; we only care about the logic behind the argument.
Re: Thousands who suffer heart attacks each year die before   [#permalink] 13 Jan 2018, 12:03

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 34 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by