Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Apr 2512:30 AM EDT
-01:30 AM EDT
At one point, she believed GMAT wasn’t for her. After scoring 595, self-doubt crept in and she questioned her potential. But instead of quitting, she made the right strategic changes. The result? A remarkable comeback to 695. Check out how Saakshi did it.
Apr 2610:00 AM EDT
-11:00 AM EDT
The Target Test Prep course represents a quantum leap forward in GMAT preparation, a radical reinterpretation of the way that students should study. Try before you buy with a 5-day, full-access trial of the course for FREE!
Apr 2711:00 AM EDT
-12:00 PM EDT
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors
Apr 2808:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
15 Aug 2018, 02:00
Kudos
Bookmarks
C
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
75%
(hard)
Question Stats:
53% (01:51) correct
47%
(01:58)
wrong
based on 1110
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
A recent study showed that the immune system blood cells of the study's participants who drank tea but no coffee took half as long to respond to germs as did the blood cells of participants who drank coffee but no tea. Thus, drinking tea boosted the participants' immune system defenses.
Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
.(A) All of the participants in the study drank either tea or coffee, and none drank both.
.(B) Coffee has no health benefits that are as valuable as the boost that tea purportedly gives to the body's immune system.
.(C) In the study, drinking coffee did not cause the blood cell response time to double.
.(D) Coffee drinkers in general are no more likely to exercise and eat healthily than are tea drinkers.
.(E) Coffee and tea do not have in common any chemicals that fight disease in the human body
Source: LSAT
Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
.(A) All of the participants in the study drank either tea or coffee, and none drank both.
.(B) Coffee has no health benefits that are as valuable as the boost that tea purportedly gives to the body's immune system.
.(C) In the study, drinking coffee did not cause the blood cell response time to double.
.(D) Coffee drinkers in general are no more likely to exercise and eat healthily than are tea drinkers.
.(E) Coffee and tea do not have in common any chemicals that fight disease in the human body
Source: LSAT
15 Aug 2018, 05:08
Kudos
Bookmarks
Question Type: Necessary Assumption
Task:
Which answer choice, if false, most weakens the argument
ARGUMENT CORE
conclusion
Drinking tea boosted people's immune system
evidence
In a study, people who only drank tea took 1/2 as long to respond to germs as did people who only drank coffee
ANALYSIS
Since our goal with the correct answer is to negate it and see if it would weaken the argument, we should think through how we could debate this author.
"How could we argue that tea did NOT boost their immune defenses?"
With any study where we're comparing two groups based on some experimental variable (tea vs. coffee), we have to ask the underlying questions of any good science experiment:
Were these groups equivalent, other than which drink they had? Were there any differences between the tea and coffee group in terms of initial health / age / fitness / history of drinking tea vs. coffee, etc.?
In order to judge the "1/2 as long response time" as a direct effect of tea vs. coffee, we have to control for all these other variables.
ANSWER CHOICES
(A) If some participants drank tea AND coffee, would that give us a way to argue that tea didn't boost the immune system?
No. The study may have had lots of different groups: tea only, coffee only, tea+coffee, neither. No matter what, there WAS a tea only group and there WAS a coffee only group, and there WAS a significant difference between them in immune response time.
(B) If coffee DOES have other health benefits, does that let us argue that tea didn't boost the immune system? Definitely not.
(C) If coffee DID cause blood cell response time to double, does that let us argue that tea didn't boost the immune system? Hmmm. It's weirdly mathy. Drinking coffee meant cell response time was twice as fast as normal. Drinking tea was 1/2 as long as coffee. So drinking tea was normal response time. Oh! So drinking tea did NOT boost the immune response. The tea-only group just had a normal response time.
(D) This looks like the sort of study-shenanigans we were thinking about before. But this is about coffee drinkers and tea drinkers in general, and the conclusion is just about the study participants' (we don't even know if they WERE coffee/tea drinkers to begin with)
(E) Extreme alert. "ANY chemicals"? If coffee and tea DO have at least one disease-fighting chemical in common, does that help me argue that drinking tea did NOT boost immune response time? Definitely not.
The correct answer is (C).
KUDOS will be appreciated
Task:
Which answer choice, if false, most weakens the argument
ARGUMENT CORE
conclusion
Drinking tea boosted people's immune system
evidence
In a study, people who only drank tea took 1/2 as long to respond to germs as did people who only drank coffee
ANALYSIS
Since our goal with the correct answer is to negate it and see if it would weaken the argument, we should think through how we could debate this author.
"How could we argue that tea did NOT boost their immune defenses?"
With any study where we're comparing two groups based on some experimental variable (tea vs. coffee), we have to ask the underlying questions of any good science experiment:
Were these groups equivalent, other than which drink they had? Were there any differences between the tea and coffee group in terms of initial health / age / fitness / history of drinking tea vs. coffee, etc.?
In order to judge the "1/2 as long response time" as a direct effect of tea vs. coffee, we have to control for all these other variables.
ANSWER CHOICES
(A) If some participants drank tea AND coffee, would that give us a way to argue that tea didn't boost the immune system?
No. The study may have had lots of different groups: tea only, coffee only, tea+coffee, neither. No matter what, there WAS a tea only group and there WAS a coffee only group, and there WAS a significant difference between them in immune response time.
(B) If coffee DOES have other health benefits, does that let us argue that tea didn't boost the immune system? Definitely not.
(C) If coffee DID cause blood cell response time to double, does that let us argue that tea didn't boost the immune system? Hmmm. It's weirdly mathy. Drinking coffee meant cell response time was twice as fast as normal. Drinking tea was 1/2 as long as coffee. So drinking tea was normal response time. Oh! So drinking tea did NOT boost the immune response. The tea-only group just had a normal response time.
(D) This looks like the sort of study-shenanigans we were thinking about before. But this is about coffee drinkers and tea drinkers in general, and the conclusion is just about the study participants' (we don't even know if they WERE coffee/tea drinkers to begin with)
(E) Extreme alert. "ANY chemicals"? If coffee and tea DO have at least one disease-fighting chemical in common, does that help me argue that drinking tea did NOT boost immune response time? Definitely not.
The correct answer is (C).
KUDOS will be appreciated
General Discussion
15 Aug 2018, 23:43
Kudos
Bookmarks
I chose answer A, because I thought that A eliminates possibilities that other factors were involved that could have affected the study. Can anyone clarify how A could be eliminated?
