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.
May 2712:30 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.
May 2110:00 AM EDT
-11:59 PM EDT
Make the most of your break with the most realistic GMAT™ prep. Take up to $700 off select products.
May 2212:30 AM EDT
-01:30 AM EDT
From 535→695 to 735 in one shot — GMATWhiz students prove what focused prep can achieve. Get up to 44% OFF on expert-guided, AI-driven GMAT prep with mentor support. Plans from $149.
May 3102:00 PM PDT
-03:00 PM PDT
Video explanations + diagnosis of 10 weakest areas + 150+ short videos + study plan!
Jun 1006:00 AM PDT
-06:15 PM PDT
Register for the GMAT Club Virtual MBA Spotlight Fair – the world’s premier event for serious MBA candidates. This is your chance to hear directly from Admissions Directors at nearly every Top 30 MBA program..
17 May 2026, 19:00
Kudos
Bookmarks
B
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
45%
(medium)
Question Stats:
59% (01:25) correct
41%
(01:40)
wrong
based on 102
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
The extract of the cacao leaves was considered a miracle cure-all in the 1800s. Doctors believed that a mixture of the extract and wine, if drunk regularly, could kill off parasitic infestations, destroy tumors, and revitalize living tissue.
Which of the following, if true, most strongly indicates that the logic of the belief described above is flawed?
A. To make the cacao leaf extract safer to consume, it could be diluted with alcohol without weakening its desired effects.
B. Since tumors are living cells, the mixture would affect them in the same way that it would affect living tissue.
C. It cannot be presumed that the use of a particular medication is always appropriate.
D. If the suggested treatment were put into effect on a wide scale, healthcare costs would be lower than they are now.
E. Because consuming the cacao leaf extract would alter the consumer’s metabolism, a new diet would have to be designed for them to remain healthy.
Which of the following, if true, most strongly indicates that the logic of the belief described above is flawed?
A. To make the cacao leaf extract safer to consume, it could be diluted with alcohol without weakening its desired effects.
B. Since tumors are living cells, the mixture would affect them in the same way that it would affect living tissue.
C. It cannot be presumed that the use of a particular medication is always appropriate.
D. If the suggested treatment were put into effect on a wide scale, healthcare costs would be lower than they are now.
E. Because consuming the cacao leaf extract would alter the consumer’s metabolism, a new diet would have to be designed for them to remain healthy.
ankushsambare
Joined: 13 Jun 2022
Last visit: 26 May 2026
Posts: 186
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 117
Location: India
Schools: ISB '27 Wharton '26 INSEAD Aug '26
GPA: 2.4
Updated on: 18 May 2026, 20:31
Originally posted by ankushsambare on 17 May 2026, 20:29.
Last edited by ankushsambare on 18 May 2026, 20:31, edited 1 time in total.
Last edited by ankushsambare on 18 May 2026, 20:31, edited 1 time in total.
Kudos
Bookmarks
Answer: B
Doctors believed the mixture could:
So if the mixture revitalizes living tissue, it should also revitalize tumors rather than destroy them.
Choice B exposes this contradiction directly, making the doctors’ logic flawed.
Doctors believed the mixture could:
- destroy tumors
- revitalize living tissue
So if the mixture revitalizes living tissue, it should also revitalize tumors rather than destroy them.
Choice B exposes this contradiction directly, making the doctors’ logic flawed.
- A supports the treatment.
- C is too general.
- D is irrelevant.
- E only suggests side effects, not flawed logic.
17 May 2026, 23:50
Kudos
Bookmarks
I think the conclusion here is:
-- the mixture works as a miracle cure because it can destroy tumors while revitalizing living tissue.
Premise:
The doctors believed the extract could:
- kill parasites
- destroy tumors
- revitalize living tissue
Why B is correct:
Option B says tumors are themselves living cells, and the mixture would affect tumors the same way it affects living tissue.
That creates the flaw directly.
If tumors and living tissue are affected in the same way, then the mixture cannot both:
- destroy tumors
and
- revitalize living tissue
That is the contradiction in the argument, so B attacks the logic at its core.
Why I eliminated the others:
A:
Only talks about making the extract safer by dilution. It does not weaken the actual reasoning.
C:
Very broad statement about medication in general. It does not specifically attack this argument.
D:
Talks about healthcare costs, which is outside the logic of the cure itself.
E:
This one looked tempting initially, but it only introduces a side effect (metabolism/diet changes). A treatment can still work even if side effects exist, so it does not expose a flaw in the reasoning.
So for me, B directly exposes the internal contradiction, while E only discusses a possible consequence.
— Rajdeep
-- the mixture works as a miracle cure because it can destroy tumors while revitalizing living tissue.
Premise:
The doctors believed the extract could:
- kill parasites
- destroy tumors
- revitalize living tissue
Why B is correct:
Option B says tumors are themselves living cells, and the mixture would affect tumors the same way it affects living tissue.
That creates the flaw directly.
If tumors and living tissue are affected in the same way, then the mixture cannot both:
- destroy tumors
and
- revitalize living tissue
That is the contradiction in the argument, so B attacks the logic at its core.
Why I eliminated the others:
A:
Only talks about making the extract safer by dilution. It does not weaken the actual reasoning.
C:
Very broad statement about medication in general. It does not specifically attack this argument.
D:
Talks about healthcare costs, which is outside the logic of the cure itself.
E:
This one looked tempting initially, but it only introduces a side effect (metabolism/diet changes). A treatment can still work even if side effects exist, so it does not expose a flaw in the reasoning.
So for me, B directly exposes the internal contradiction, while E only discusses a possible consequence.
— Rajdeep
