A new medical procedure replaces all three of the tiny bones in the in

IMO C

Since "This procedure will benefit a relatively small percentage of the hearing-impaired population. It can be inferred that more people suffer from impaired hearing due to neurological damage than because of damage to the tiny bones of the inner ear.



Regards

Argha

sorry argha...but i want to contradict on this.

A new medical procedure replaces all three of the tiny bones in the inner ear with a single piece of ultra-thin fiberglass. The procedure has been found to greatly improve hearing in people who have experienced damage to these bones, though it is useless to people whose hearing loss stems from a neurological malfunction. This procedure will benefit a relatively small percentage of the hearing-impaired population

Which of the following can be concluded from the argument above?

A)It is possible to hear without the use of the three tiny bones in the inner ear.
this one is correct ==>as it is stated in argument that bones are replaced by ultra thin fibre glass..and the people are hearing without bones.

B)Most hearing loss is due to neurological malfunctioning.
we cant say MOST==>this is extreme.

C)More people have impaired hearing because of neurological damage than because of damage to the tiny bones of the inner ear.
we cannot compare this......although the presence of line "This procedure will benefit a relatively small percentage of the hearing-impaired population"==>it doesnt tells us that only 2 type of hearing impairment is there..there may be plenty other type of hearing impairment in which this method is not successful.

D)Hearing loss due to neurological damage is more severe than hearing loss due to damage to the tiny bones in the inner ear.
we cant compare the severity ...as it is nowhere stated in the passage.

E)The use of fiberglass cannot help people who have lost hearing due to neurological damage.
this one is awkward....use of fibreglass==>we dont know.

hence A

It is possible to hear without the use of the three tiny bones in the inner ear. See above explanation.

Most hearing loss is due to neurological malfunctioning. Stimulus says this won't help people with neurological hearing loss. It says nothing about other causes of hearing loss.

More people have impaired hearing because of neurological damage than because of damage to the tiny bones of the inner ear. Same as answer B, just phrased differently.

Hearing loss due to neurological damage is more severe than hearing loss due to damage to the tiny bones in the inner ear. The stimulus only states Neurological hearing loss will not be helped by this procedure. No mention or inference is made as to which type of hearing loss is generally more severe.

The use of fiberglass cannot help people who have lost hearing due to neurological damage. This is specifically stated in the stimulus.

Which of the following can be concluded from the argument above?

A)It is possible to hear without the use of the three tiny bones in the inner ear.
Can be inferred as the argument says the procedure will improve hearing.. That means people with damaged tiny bones still hear..

B)Most hearing loss is due to neurological malfunctioning.
Very tempting.... We are talking about the contribution of a medical procedure to hearing-impaired population...
The procedure is useless to neurological malfunction.. That does not mean hearing loss is due to neurological malfunctioning.

C)More people have impaired hearing because of neurological damage than because of damage to the tiny bones of the inner ear.
Again.. Same as B.. We are talking about the contribution of a medical procedure to hearing-impaired population..
People having more or less impaired due to neuro is out of context.. We are focused on the benfit the procedure provides.

D)Hearing loss due to neurological damage is more severe than hearing loss due to damage to the tiny bones in the inner ear.

Cannot be stated.. Since procedure does not work for neuro malfunction cases, does not mean that neurological damage is a more severe than damanged bone

E)The use of fiberglass cannot help people who have lost hearing due to neurological damage.
Huge diffrence b/w ultra-thin fiberglass and fiberglass.
[/quote]

Hi folks,

let me say or to point out a couple of considerations on that
- this question is a bit flawed because analyzing the stimulus i do not see anything that could be infer and bringing what pqhai said

well this is correct but at the same time is too rigid. I noticed in the OG (because this is the landmark, no matter what a question from a prep company is well formulated) this: is NOT as simple as it seems. more often is a mix of these things

One very important thing to keep in mind, while evaluating options on an Inference question, is that the correct option must be true under all conditions/possibilities. There may be some options which may be true under some situations and may not be true under others. These will not be the correct answer.



fact #1 this just says that something new can replace something else. restoring the previous situation as much as possible

fact 2# who has a fisical damage can be helped to replanish that and gains improvement from that unless the damage comes from something else that is much deeper as cause, difficult to fix with a simple bones' replacement (i.e. neurological malfunction)

Conclusion: this is not a conclusion following the logic chain. moreover we have no signal words, such as: therefore and so on. I never see a conclusion on gmatland that has not been introduced by these words

Do remember that the stimulus of an Inference question may not necessarily be in the form of an argument. In fact, most often the stimulus will contain a set of facts.



Here the correct answer have the word without and the argument talks about improve......mmmm this seems a bit nonsensical to me.

Improve is something that starts from 1 or 2 not from scratch: I improve my skills but i have at least 1 skill already. Here instead we are talking about without.........

I can ear even a bit. That say, near the threshold of zero and i have my bones damaged but I can still ear but i cannot do that without my tiny bones.

Major takeaway from all this:

Inference does not mean to summarize the argument – An inference does not have to
provide a logical conclusion to the stimulus nor does it have to be a summary of the
argument. It just has to be a fact that can most definitely be concluded given the information
in the stimulus. It goes without saying that there can be multiple inferences that can be
arrived at from a given stimulus.

Don’t bother predicting the answer – Because multiple inferences can be made from a given
stimulus, it doesn’t make sense to predict the answer. Instead look at each option and try to
eliminate extreme options or those that are outside the scope of the argument.

Always avoid Extreme options – It is human nature to read too much between the lines. In
fact this quality may even be beneficial or an asset in real life. However, on the GMAT this
will prove to be a liability. If you read too much between the lines, you will most likely end
up with extreme or strongly worded options, which will almost never be the correct answer to
an Inference question. So avoid options that contain extreme words such as must, always, only,
cannot be determined, etc. Instead go with options that contain vague words such as usually,
maybe, might, sometimes, possibly, etc.

Never use outside knowledge to answer Inference Questions – If you avoid extreme
options, you will automatically end up avoiding making use of outside knowledge while
evaluating options

Assumptions play no role in Inference questions – Unlike the five question types we saw
earlier, Inference questions will not require you to identify the assumption in the argument.
In most cases the stimulus won’t contain an argument in the first place but just a set of facts.

Avoid Explain Answers – A common wrong answer trap in Inference questions is an option
that explains the situation in the stimulus. These options will look extremely logical to you
but remember that the question is not asking you to explain the stimulus but to infer
something from it.

Good question and answer is indeed A!

A. Correct. The 2nd sentence clearly mentions that REPLACING THE 3 TINY BONES (in cases where they are damaged, of course..) WITH FIBRE GLASS IMPROVES HEARING!! That's it!!!...To be frank, I didn't feel like moving further with the remaining choices because I thought I have most likely got my bait!!...The remaining choices were actually very tricky and I started having doubts but finally selected A..Nwz going ahead with the remaining ones

B. Stimulus deceives us in thinking that the fibre glass shall be not be useful to those with neourological defect and SIMULTANEOUSLY (NOTE: not HENCE) shall be useful to a relatively small percentage of total victims....Imagine a situation: Out of every 100 patients, 20 get the benefit of fibre glass by replacing their tiny bones, 30 are neurologically defective and the remaining 60 have a defect that is neither neurological nor served well by fiber replacement. In a scenario like this, the given option fails.

C. Wrong. Consider a second scenario where 30 patients have defective bones and need fiber replacement and 20 have neurological defect. Note that this is a valid assumption (no. of patients with defective tiny bones > no. of patients with neurological defect) as the stimulus never mentions any numerical relationship between the 2 groups. The only statement made is that ON ONE HAND, fiber is of no use to neurologically defect patients and ON THE OTHER HAND, this technology will serve a relatively small percentage of patients. NO HENCE, THUS....

D. Irrelevant. No severity issues being discussed.

E. Argh!! Very very tricky...and mind you this got me thinking hard!!! Note "damage" in option and "malfunction" in stimulus. 2 different things, aren't they? To elaborate, those with damaged neurons MAY/MAY NOT still hope to get the benefit by fiberglass for which no data in stimulus exists, but those with partially functioning neurons are in no way benefitting at all...

This was a real mind-bender... Must say, most of the Veritas questions I have encountered are among the toughest on the forum!!!

Hope I explained myself well...

Here is my explanation.

A new medical procedure replaces all three of the tiny bones in the inner ear with a single piece of ultra-thin fiberglass. The procedure has been found to greatly improve hearing in people who have experienced damage to these bones, though it is useless to people whose hearing loss stems from a neurological malfunction. This procedure will benefit a relatively small percentage of the hearing-impaired population.

Which of the following can be concluded from the argument above?

A It is possible to hear without the use of the three tiny bones in the inner ear.
Correct. See key word "improve". It means people have damaged tiny bones in the inner ear can still hear.

B Most hearing loss is due to neurological malfunctioning.
Wrong. The question does NOT assume there is only TWO types of hearing-impaired. Author mentioned two types of hearing-impaired does NOT mean there are only two types.

C More people have impaired hearing because of neurological damage than because of damage to the tiny bones of the inner ear.
Wrong. Author says the procedure will benefit a relatively small percentage of the hearing-impaired population. What if, in total hearing-impaired population, there is 5% damaged tiny inner ear (quite small), there is 3% of neurological malfunction, and there 92% of other types. Clearly, C is wrong. Again, the question does NOT compare, just mentions how the produce help/not help hearing-impaired people.

D Hearing loss due to neurological damage is more severe than hearing loss due to damage to the tiny bones in the inner ear.
Wrong. Out of scope. Nothing about "more severe".

E The use of fiberglass cannot help people who have lost hearing due to neurological damage.
Wrong. TEMPTING. The stimulus only mentions a procedure - using a single piece of ultra-thin fiberglass. The stimulus does not generalize "fiberglass". What if a procedure that uses TWO piece of ultra-thin fiberglass can help people having neurological damage?

Hope it helps.

Veritas Prep Official Answer

Notice that the question stem says "Which of the following can be concluded from the argument above?"

This is an inference question. Which means that you are looking for the answer choice that must be true.

If we look at choices B and C that you favored, you can see that these are not "must be true."

Choice B "Most hearing loss is due to neurological malfunctioning." There is no quantification of causes of hearing loss in the stimulus. It may be true that neurological malfunctioning is the top cause, but then it may also be that the biggest cause of hearing loss is damage from loud noise. The point is that this is not "must be true."

Choice C "More people have impaired hearing because of neurological damage than because of damage to the tiny bones of the inner ear." is wrong for exactly the same reason. There is no indication of the number of people suffering do to the various causes.

Choice A, on the other hand, MUST BE TRUE, "A)It is possible to hear without the use of the three tiny bones in the inner ear."

We know this because the stimulus says, "A new medical procedure replaces all three of the tiny bones in the inner ear with a single piece of ultra-thin fiberglass. The procedure has been found to greatly improve hearing in people who have experienced damage to these bones" If replacing the bones with fiberglass works and people can hear after the surgery it must mean that the 3 tiny bones are not 100% necessary for hearing.

So you see approaching this question as an inference really helps point directly to choice A as the correct answer.

Hi,
An example of a Q where you are forced to choose an answer with flawed logic because other choices are even worse.

A new medical procedure replaces all three of the tiny bones in the inner ear with a single piece of ultra-thin fiberglass. The procedure has been found to greatly improve hearing in people who have experienced damage to these bones, though it is useless to people whose hearing loss stems from a neurological malfunction. This procedure will benefit a relatively small percentage of the hearing-impaired population

Which of the following can be concluded from the argument above?

A. It is possible to hear without the use of the three tiny bones in the inner ear.
Only possiblity of a correct answer. because ultra thin fibreglass is used in its place to enable a person to hear..
but logic is questionable.
since artificial limbs are utilized by few runners, can we say that it is possible to walk without legs..
In this Q We can say that "It is possible to hear by replacing the three tiny bones in the inner ear with a single piece of ultra-thin fiberglass"
but certainly not It is possible to hear without the use of the three tiny bones in the inner ear....
It says more to the effect that " these bones are there, dont use them but still enjoy hearing"

B. Most hearing loss is due to neurological malfunctioning.
not necessary. We can only conclude that not most of hearing problems are due to the three bone issue but nothing about neurological malfunctioning.

C. More people have impaired hearing because of neurological damage than because of damage to the tiny bones of the inner ear.
same as B. not necessary. We can only conclude that not most of hearing problems are due to the three bone issue but nothing about neurological malfunctioning.

D. Hearing loss due to neurological damage is more severe than hearing loss due to damage to the tiny bones in the inner ear.
severity has not been talked of. Out of context

E. The use of fiberglass cannot help people who have lost hearing due to neurological damage.
A tempting choice. But we are talking of effects of a specific medical procedure, its a different matter that it uses fibreglass.. may be some other procedure using the fibre glass may be effective

ans A..
But would request some Veritas rep to comment on logic of A.. VeritasPrepKarishma

E is incorrect because of a very simple thing. The passage states that a particular medical technique that uses fibreglass is ineffective in curing hearing loss caused due to neurological damage. Very important point - that particular medical technique is ineffective. We cannot conclude from this that fibreglass as a whole is ineffective. There may be other procedures that use fibreglass and are effective.

I actually marked E too, however, after thinking about it for some time, I understood why E is incorrect.

The stem says it "improves hearing" when we utilise the fibreglass procedure. That means one can hear even with these three damaged bones. Just that the usage of this method improves hearing.

How is option A correct then?

Have you misunderstood something? I think you are stating almost the same thing as is stated in option A.

Nevertheless another way to look at the problems is as follows:
The first sentence states that "a new medical procedure replaces all three of the tiny bones in the inner ear with a single piece of ultra-thin fiberglass." This implies that it is possible to hear without the use of the three tiny bones in the inner ear (by using a fiberglass implant).

Hi Experts, What about option E. We are given that the procedure is useless for neorological malfunction so we can say it will not help.

Option E states about the use of fibreglass in general, not about the use of fibre-glass to replace the tiny bones in the inner ear. It is possible that some other procedure using fiberglass is useful in treating people who have lost hearing due to neurological damage. Hence Option E is wrong.

chetan2u

Your reasoning is correct, but I would like to mention a few things to tell why option A is correct.

The question states that "The procedure has been found to greatly improve hearing". This means that the procedure only improves hearing so they already were able to hear. Hence A is correct.

this is a common trap in gmat, there can be more than 2 causes for the problem, and the percentage or the number (amount) is not enough to tell about the causes.

Here, only A is the winner.

My reasoning for choosing A, I was not a 100% sure, but A made the most sense.

In the prompt it says, procedure has been found to greatly improve hearing in people who have experienced damage to these bones, with that,

A - says "it is possible to hear without the use of the three tiny bones in the inner ear", which this is never not proven if something is improved it started from somewhere even if a low extreme.

B - Most hearing loss is due to neurological malfunctioning. - How do we know that are not other factors that cause hearing loss, besides damage to the three bones and neurological. Sure, neurological can be > than physical damage to the bones, but we do not know if it is the most.

C. More people have impaired hearing because of neurological damage than because of damage to the tiny bones of the inner ear. To me the same as B, cannot compare the numbers of the two, without knowing those are the only two possible ways to cause hearing loss

D. Hearing loss due to neurological damage is more severe than hearing loss due to damage to the tiny bones in the inner ear.Again, similar to B & C, we do not know or can conclude

E. The use of fiberglass cannot help people who have lost hearing due to neurological damage. Again, how do we not know that fiberglass is used in other applications