Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases https://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 24 May 2017, 20:00

### 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 June
Open Detailed Calendar

# Thousands who suffer heart attacks each year die before

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 15 Jul 2008
Posts: 54
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 48 [5] , given: 2

Thousands who suffer heart attacks each year die before [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Aug 2008, 08:52
5
KUDOS
8
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

25% (medium)

Question Stats:

66% (02:02) correct 34% (01:26) wrong based on 874 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

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.

[Reveal] Spoiler: OA
If you have any questions
New!
Senior Manager
Joined: 30 Nov 2010
Posts: 260
Schools: UC Berkley, UCLA
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 105 [2] , given: 66

### Show Tags

09 Dec 2010, 08:53
2
KUDOS
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.

Premise: People who have heart attacks must go to a clinic or a hospital.
Premise 2: On their way to the hospital they die without receiving the proper medical attention that they need.
Premise 3: A new blood dissolving agent is approved.
Conclusion: This new agent can save the life of heart attack victims.

A: If the new agent must be taking with the administration of a doctor in a hospital, it defeats the whole purpose of the drug being made. (B/c heart attack victims die on their way to a hospital)
B: Irrelevant.
C: Supports argument
D: Does not weaken the argument
E: Does not help with attacking the conclusion of the argument.
_________________

Thank you for your kudoses Everyone!!!

"It always seems impossible until its done."
-Nelson Mandela

Manager
Status: I rest, I rust.
Joined: 04 Oct 2010
Posts: 122
Schools: ISB - Co 2013
WE 1: IT Professional since 2006
Followers: 17

Kudos [?]: 120 [1] , given: 9

### Show Tags

26 Nov 2010, 06:31
1
KUDOS
I just started reading PowerScore CR Bible. Lets see if it has helped me any.

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 [Premise]. 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 [Conclusion].

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.
This sounds like a winner since it says that "patients would still have to brought to the hospital before the drug could be administered", but its the transit itself during which most patients die. But lets assess other options too.

(B) Many heart attack victims die unnecessarily even though they reach a hospital or clinic in time.
This actually strenghtens the argument; since it says that "not reaching hospital in time" is not the problem, but "lack of a good remedy" is. Stimulus tells us that such a remedy has just been develped. Rejected

(C) The new agent can be effectively administered prior to the victim's arrival at a hospital or clinic.
This also strenghtens the argument; since it says that "patients can be saved to a large extent even before they reach the hospital". Rejected

(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 neither weakens nor strengthens the argument, since the agent may not have any effect at all. Rejected

(E) The new blood clot dissolving agent causes kidney damage and irregular heart rates in some patients.
This comes dangerously close to weakening the argument but actually does not, since there may exist a cure for damaged kidney and irregular heart rates, or they may even not be life threatening. Rejected

Only A remains

_________________

Respect,
Vaibhav

PS: Correct me if I am wrong.

Retired Moderator
Joined: 18 Jul 2008
Posts: 975
Followers: 10

Kudos [?]: 219 [0], given: 5

### Show Tags

14 Aug 2008, 08:54
a)
Manager
Joined: 15 Jul 2008
Posts: 54
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 48 [0], given: 2

### Show Tags

14 Aug 2008, 09:01
Why A? I can't understand
Manager
Joined: 25 May 2008
Posts: 191
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

14 Aug 2008, 09:08
I think is A. The author says that "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". So, if "The new agent must be administered by a team of doctors in a hospital or clinic setting", the situation remains the same and what spokesman says is not true. What is the OA?
Manager
Joined: 15 Jul 2008
Posts: 54
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 48 [0], given: 2

### Show Tags

14 Aug 2008, 09:12
Thank vbalex. OA is A
Manager
Joined: 25 May 2008
Posts: 191
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

14 Aug 2008, 09:15
Let me explain: people die because they must go to a hospital to have medication. They need a drug which could be administred at home, not at hospital, without doctors . If we take A, we will see that even for the new drug they will need to go at hospital, so the situation remains the same.
Director
Joined: 30 Jun 2007
Posts: 790
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 165 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

14 Aug 2008, 16:44
Conclusion: 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.

Assumption: The drug can be taken by the patients before or during onset of the heart attack.

The weaken conclusion either invalid the assumption or introduce the additional extra information that overall weaken the argument.

Tie is between: A and D

Since A weakens the central pillar (assumption) of the arguments, hence wins.
Manager
Joined: 28 Aug 2006
Posts: 145
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 136 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

15 Aug 2008, 15:58
vbalex wrote:
Let me explain: people die because they must go to a hospital to have medication. They need a drug which could be administred at home, not at hospital, without doctors . If we take A, we will see that even for the new drug they will need to go at hospital, so the situation remains the same.

Well said....

Ans - A
Manager
Joined: 15 Jul 2008
Posts: 54
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 48 [0], given: 2

### Show Tags

15 Aug 2008, 21:12
Thank you so much
Manager
Joined: 31 Jul 2006
Posts: 236
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 80 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

17 Aug 2008, 22:53
A
Senior Manager
Joined: 06 Apr 2008
Posts: 437
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 155 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

18 Aug 2008, 05:10
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.

IMO A).

The main concern is that patients die before reaching hospital. Now if there is new drug which must be administered by team of doctors then it will not help in improving the concern.
Senior Manager
Joined: 25 Nov 2006
Posts: 271
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 38 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

18 Aug 2008, 06:24
IMO A.

It reinstates the fact that the patient should be in a Hospital atmosphere....but the argument states that most patients die before they reach the hospital. Thus this drug would be ineffective cause by the time the doctors administer it, the patient would already have been dead.
VP
Joined: 17 Jun 2008
Posts: 1381
Followers: 8

Kudos [?]: 328 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

18 Aug 2008, 06:42
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
_________________

cheers
Its Now Or Never

Verbal Forum Moderator
Joined: 31 Jan 2010
Posts: 490
WE 1: 4 years Tech
Followers: 13

Kudos [?]: 149 [0], given: 149

### Show Tags

26 Nov 2010, 06:12
A is the answer because it brings under consideration the possibility that if the new drug will only available at clinical setup, patients who r not able to to reach the setup on time will unable to enjoy the benefits of the drug
_________________

My Post Invites Discussions not answers
Try to give back something to the Forum.I want your explanations, right now !

Manager
Joined: 23 Oct 2010
Posts: 85
Location: India
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 30 [0], given: 6

### Show Tags

26 Nov 2010, 06:15
A.

if a new agent is released, though it might be effective, but it still needs to be administered in a clinic by doctors. Hence the premise of the above argument is still valid that states that most of the heart patients die because they are not able to recieve medication in time to remove blood clots. Time to deliver is being questioned here in the premise and not the quality of drug.
Senior Manager
Joined: 01 Nov 2010
Posts: 289
Location: India
Concentration: Technology, Marketing
GMAT Date: 08-27-2012
GPA: 3.8
WE: Marketing (Manufacturing)
Followers: 10

Kudos [?]: 80 [0], given: 44

### Show Tags

27 Nov 2010, 00:59
The only ans is A.
_________________

kudos me if you like my post.

Attitude determine everything.
all the best and God bless you.

Manager
Status: Trying to get into the illustrious 700 club!
Joined: 18 Oct 2010
Posts: 78
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 23 [0], given: 58

### Show Tags

30 Nov 2010, 12:45
The assumption is that the drug will save lives because it can be taken anywhere instead of relying on the drugs at the hospital (most people die in route to the hospital)

(A) The new agent must be administered by a team of doctors in a hospital or clinic setting.

If the drug has to be administered by a team of doctors in a hospital than there really are no advantages to the drug. Patients might die on the way to the hospital just the same as before.
_________________

I'm trying to not just answer the problem but to explain how I came up with my answer. If I am incorrect or you have a better method please PM me your thoughts. Thanks!

Manager
Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Posts: 148
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 105 [0], given: 37

### Show Tags

07 Dec 2010, 15:52
The first sentence says that ppl die before reaching hospital when they suffer from heart attack...
A directly is related to that claim and weakens the conclusion.
IMO A
_________________

Thanks,
VP

Re: CR: heart attack   [#permalink] 07 Dec 2010, 15:52

Go to page    1   2   3    Next  [ 45 posts ]

Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
13 Revision Project: As many as 98,000 people die each year 8 09 Apr 2016, 12:45
As many as 98,000 people die each year due to medical error. 0 06 Mar 2013, 16:41
2 As many as 98,000 people die each year due to medical error. 10 23 Feb 2017, 01:30
1 Elderly women who have suffered heart attacks are five times 11 06 May 2017, 22:14
6 Of 2,500 people who survived a first heart attack, those who 9 03 Jun 2016, 06:45
Display posts from previous: Sort by