Thousands who suffer heart attacks each year die before reaching

Question

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.

This is a  CR Butler Question

Check the links to other Butler Projects:
 
  Data Sufficiency Butler  
  Problem Solving Butler  
  Sentence Correction Butler  
  Reading Comprehension Butler  
  Integrated Reasoning Butler

OneLazyBum · Answer

(A)
Because this means that it will not be able to save people who die before reaching the hospital. Therefore, weakens the argument.

MansikaVats · Answer

My answer would be option A because the argument lies on how a heart attack patient can be saved even before reaching a hospital by this newly innovated drugs . But if this gets proved that this new agent must be administered by a team of doctors in a hospital then what will even be the use of this new agent . 
Hence option A is the correct option in my opinion .

You are free to correct me thanks .

Dereno · Answer

Thousands have died before reaching to hospitals or clinics - as they have not got the drugs which is available only at those hospitals/ clinics. Failure to get those drugs will eventually lead to death. The drugs will help in dissolving the clots in coronary arteries. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have recently approved a new blood clot dissolving agent ; this could be a game changer as this new entrant will save lives of many.

We need to find a weakener :

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

If a new drug can be administered only by a doctor in clinic or hospital setting , this goes back to square one - where the patient is previously administered such drugs only after reaching hospital. The new drug even though having a greater efficacy might fail when not given on time. The crucial golden hour is missed, eventually leading to death of the person. Thus, this is a weakening statement. Hence, correct.

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

The term “ unnecessarily “ is an opened ended statement. This can be interpreted as fate too. Or the patient might have many other complications which could have caused death. This is irrelevant. Hence, wrong.

(C) The new agent can be effectively administered prior to the victim's arrival at a hospital or clinic.

This statement is the exact reverse of Option A, hence being a strengthening statement. It’s wrong.

(D) The Food and Drug Administration has already approved agents that are at least as effective as the new drug in dissolving blood clots.
 
The option speaks about existence of such agents prior to the new arrival. Thus, a drug being exists doesn’t necessarily mean, they can be administered at the time of need. And, the location criteria clause mentioned needed to administer such drug still remains the same. Hence, wrong.

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

Complications caused after administering such medication vs the fatality of not administering such drug are two different criteria’s. We are not talking about complications, but new drug applications in general. Hence, wrong.

Option A

Bunuel · Answer

Official Explanation:

A

Step 1: Identify the Question Type

The word “weaken” in the question stem is the clearest indication of a Weaken question.

Step 2: Untangle the Stimulus

The argument we’re seeking to weaken is that of the FDA spokesperson, who claims that the new blood clot–dissolving agent approved by the FDA could save the lives of people who would otherwise die of their heart attacks before reaching a hospital or clinic.

Step 3: Predict the Answer

The spokesperson’s conclusion can be characterized as a prediction. Before evaluating the choices, let’s determine what would have to happen in order for that prediction to come true. In order for the blood clot–dissolving agent to save these lives that the spokesperson mentions, it would have to be administered before people get to the hospital, since that’s the critical life-saving window. So to weaken the argument, we need an answer that demonstrates that this won’t happen.

Step 4: Evaluate the Choices

It doesn’t get much more straightforward than (A), which is the correct answer. If the agent must be administered in the hospital, then it doesn’t do this group of people any good, since they ordinarily die before they can get to the hospital. (B) doesn’t weaken the argument because it doesn’t tell us that the new dissolving agent won’t help these heart-attack victims. (C) strengthens the argument by suggesting that paramedics will have a chance to save victims without having to bring them to the hospital first. (D) has no effect; even if there are other agents out there, that doesn’t mean that this new agent won’t be helpful. And (E) does introduce some potentially nasty side effects, but the spokesperson doesn’t argue that the new agent won’t cause side effects; he merely argues that the drug will save lives.  Choice (A) is correct.

Thousands who suffer heart attacks each year die before reaching

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Thousands who suffer heart attacks each year die before reaching

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards