Last visit was: 02 Sep 2026, 15:38 It is currently 02 Sep 2026, 15:38
Close
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
Your Progress

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
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
805+ (Hard)|   Weaken|         
User avatar
noerd23
Joined: 03 Jan 2024
Last visit: 21 Aug 2026
Posts: 52
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 2
Location: India
Posts: 52
Kudos: 42
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
ajain31
Joined: 09 Nov 2024
Last visit: 01 Sep 2026
Posts: 70
Own Kudos:
57
 [1]
Given Kudos: 68
Location: United Kingdom
GPA: 71%
Posts: 70
Kudos: 57
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
GreenPill
Joined: 13 Jun 2026
Last visit: 02 Sep 2026
Posts: 37
Own Kudos:
Products:
Posts: 37
Kudos: 25
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
SwethaReddyL
Joined: 28 Nov 2023
Last visit: 02 Sep 2026
Posts: 186
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 271
Location: India
Posts: 186
Kudos: 37
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
the correct answer should be option E

Option A - this actually repeats what is given. We know it is the avg reduction we talk about, this just explains it - out
Option B - the premise says nearly all patients completed the full dosing - so this is out
Option C - this talks about placebo instead of the drug - out
Option D - we need to see the overall effect, this kinda is the trap here - out
Option E - this says maybe modest is the best available, so this weakens the researcher's conclusion

Option E is correct

thanks,
Swetha
Bunuel
A pharmaceutical company recently completed a 12-week clinical trial of a new painkiller, in which nearly all patients completed the full dosing schedule without interruption. A researcher analyzing the results concluded that the drug had provided little meaningful relief to patients, pointing to data showing that the average reduction in pain scores across the full course of the trial was only modest.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the researcher's conclusion?

(A) Among patients who entered the trial with the highest initial pain scores, average reductions by the end of the study were greater than those observed in patients who began with only mild or moderate pain.

(B) Patients who adhered to the prescribed dosing schedule without interruption reported substantially greater pain reductions than those who missed at least one dose during the trial.

(C) Patients who were given a placebo rather than the drug reported similarly modest reductions in pain scores over the same 12-week period.

(D) Pain score reductions among patients in the trial were negligible during the first eight weeks but accelerated sharply in the final four weeks as the drug reached its full therapeutic concentration in the bloodstream.

(E) The chronic pain condition targeted by the drug is one for which all currently available treatments have historically produced only modest average reductions in standardized pain scores.

 


This question was provided by GMAT Club
for the GMAT World Cup Competition

Win over $30,000 in prizes such as Courses, Tests, Private Tutoring, and more

 


⚠️ Important: GMAT Club does not allow AI-generated posts. AI-generated solutions are not eligible for kudos, and users who post them may face moderation action, including a ban.
User avatar
GamePine
Joined: 31 May 2026
Last visit: 04 Aug 2026
Posts: 61
Own Kudos:
55
 [1]
Given Kudos: 1
GMAT Focus 1: 645 Q79 V85 DI82
GMAT Focus 1: 645 Q79 V85 DI82
Posts: 61
Kudos: 55
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
The argument's logic is that average pain reduction was modest therefore the drug provided little relief.

The answer is D. If pain reduction are negligible for the first 8 weeks then accelerated sharply, it explains why the average over twelve weeks looks modes. 2/3 of the trial is weighing down the average. The drug could be very effective but it needs 8 weeks to take effect.

A is incorrect. Knowing how the drug performs based on different initial pain severities does not address why the overall average was modest. If we were looking at specific groups within the study, this would be relevant, but since we are looking at the average pain relief as a whole, it isn't useful to weaken the conclusion.

B is incorrect because the passage states that nearly all participants completed the full schedule without interruption. This means that even if patients who missed a dose had decreased pain relief, the number of those patients is not significant enough to dramatically impact the overall pain relief average.

C is incorrect because it introduces a placebo group that is not mentioned in the study. The passage doesn't mention a placebo trial so there is no support to compare this to the conclusion based on the trial.

E I though about picking this answer because it sounds like the drug has similar results to other drugs on the market, but I then thought about the phrasing "little meaningful relief" which is a bit vague. It could mean that it wasn't helpful or it could mean it is no more helpful than anything else on the market which make this statement strengthen the conclusion. Either way, this statement does not clearly weaken the argument.
User avatar
MakB
Joined: 05 May 2025
Last visit: 02 Sep 2026
Posts: 73
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 146
Posts: 73
Kudos: 29
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
If the placebo group reported same result as the one on medication, that means that it is not the drug which is solving the issue.
Hence, C
User avatar
Saurav1408
Joined: 26 Oct 2023
Last visit: 02 Sep 2026
Posts: 81
Own Kudos:
61
 [1]
Given Kudos: 287
Status:Active
Location: India
Products:
Posts: 81
Kudos: 61
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
In the conclusion of the researcher we notice that is says - PAIN SCORE ONLY MODEST ACROSS THE FULL COURSE OF THE TRIAL

A) The average reduction as claimed by researcher could still be modest even if highest initial pain patients had the change in pain scores. It just explains the average.

B) No one missed the schedule - as given in stimulus

C) This is a strengthener, if a therapeutic drug have results similar to a non therapeutic drug then it would strengthen the researcher claim

D) If there were no changes in pain score till 8th week and suddenly the pain scores have a drastic change after the drug reached to its therapeutic concentration then we cannot say that PAIN SCORE ONLY MODEST ACROSS THE FULL COURSE OF THE TRIAL - CORRECT

E) This is the justification or a reasoning for modest pain scores
avatar
niteshmotwani
Joined: 09 Nov 2025
Last visit: 23 Aug 2026
Posts: 224
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 16
Posts: 224
Kudos: 31
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
IMO Ans choice A is correct But I could be wrong this is good Questions I'm unable to find any winner answer choice but I feel still option A is weakener if patients are not distributed equally with pains.

Argument says this new painkiller also modest in trial.
So A - says people with high pain score they get benefited more compare to less or modest moderate pain people it gives some direction this could be the reason if we have skewed patients data.

b - already mentioned in argument no skip, everyone took full course so not this point.
c- placebo and this new painkiller equal then this is strengthener to the conclusion.
d - this could be one of the trap choice it gives the hint like if someone wait more we can get good results as early 8 weeks are not that much good compare to last 4 weeks but as said in argument this is full course so at last it should give good results so its is not valuable point to weaken this.
e - Again a similar trap i feel if other also have modest result we should not say we have weaken it other medicine painkiller are modest that's why we tried this new so we should not say other also not good so this is fine no No its is not fine so in My Opinion Only A is making me convence.

ANS is A in my opinion !
Bunuel
A pharmaceutical company recently completed a 12-week clinical trial of a new painkiller, in which nearly all patients completed the full dosing schedule without interruption. A researcher analyzing the results concluded that the drug had provided little meaningful relief to patients, pointing to data showing that the average reduction in pain scores across the full course of the trial was only modest.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the researcher's conclusion?

(A) Among patients who entered the trial with the highest initial pain scores, average reductions by the end of the study were greater than those observed in patients who began with only mild or moderate pain.

(B) Patients who adhered to the prescribed dosing schedule without interruption reported substantially greater pain reductions than those who missed at least one dose during the trial.

(C) Patients who were given a placebo rather than the drug reported similarly modest reductions in pain scores over the same 12-week period.

(D) Pain score reductions among patients in the trial were negligible during the first eight weeks but accelerated sharply in the final four weeks as the drug reached its full therapeutic concentration in the bloodstream.

(E) The chronic pain condition targeted by the drug is one for which all currently available treatments have historically produced only modest average reductions in standardized pain scores.

 


This question was provided by GMAT Club
for the GMAT World Cup Competition

Win over $30,000 in prizes such as Courses, Tests, Private Tutoring, and more

 


⚠️ Important: GMAT Club does not allow AI-generated posts. AI-generated solutions are not eligible for kudos, and users who post them may face moderation action, including a ban.
User avatar
Amity007
Joined: 12 Sep 2025
Last visit: 02 Sep 2026
Posts: 266
Own Kudos:
490
 [1]
Given Kudos: 1,849
Location: India
Schools: ISB
Products:
Schools: ISB
Posts: 266
Kudos: 490
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Conclusion: the avg reduction in pain across the full course of trial was only modest.

A) This is talking about the intensity of the initial pain score, which seems out of scope. Eliminate.
B) This comparing the scores of interrupted patients vs Uninterrupted patients, we can see in passage that all patients have gone through medication uninterrupted. Eliminate.
C) This is comparing another drug with this one. invalid comparison. Eliminate.
D) This feels like our answer. It's saying the avg pain reduction is not same across the course, it get's accelerated at the end more. So Keep.
E) Talks about historical data and generalize it. Feels out of scope. Eliminate.

Answer is D.
Bunuel
A pharmaceutical company recently completed a 12-week clinical trial of a new painkiller, in which nearly all patients completed the full dosing schedule without interruption. A researcher analyzing the results concluded that the drug had provided little meaningful relief to patients, pointing to data showing that the average reduction in pain scores across the full course of the trial was only modest.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the researcher's conclusion?

(A) Among patients who entered the trial with the highest initial pain scores, average reductions by the end of the study were greater than those observed in patients who began with only mild or moderate pain.

(B) Patients who adhered to the prescribed dosing schedule without interruption reported substantially greater pain reductions than those who missed at least one dose during the trial.

(C) Patients who were given a placebo rather than the drug reported similarly modest reductions in pain scores over the same 12-week period.

(D) Pain score reductions among patients in the trial were negligible during the first eight weeks but accelerated sharply in the final four weeks as the drug reached its full therapeutic concentration in the bloodstream.

(E) The chronic pain condition targeted by the drug is one for which all currently available treatments have historically produced only modest average reductions in standardized pain scores.

 


This question was provided by GMAT Club
for the GMAT World Cup Competition

Win over $30,000 in prizes such as Courses, Tests, Private Tutoring, and more

 


⚠️ Important: GMAT Club does not allow AI-generated posts. AI-generated solutions are not eligible for kudos, and users who post them may face moderation action, including a ban.
User avatar
Pratyaksh1907
Joined: 17 Nov 2024
Last visit: 26 Aug 2026
Posts: 55
Own Kudos:
23
 [1]
Given Kudos: 43
Posts: 55
Kudos: 23
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Argument -
- all paitents acompleted the course with due diligence.
- Conclusion , the drug is very little meaningful to the patients.
- supporting logic to the conclusion, there is only modest reduction in pain score in terms of average accross whole 12 weeks.

Pre thinking - "What if, somehow the drugs were not little, but actually meaningful to the paitence?" find answer to this question without changng any of the premise.
1. The very modest decrease was in the most critical part of the pain that may cause relief to the paitent. So the drug can be meaningful right?
2. Let's talk about average, the drug may have showed it's crucial effect in the very short interval of course, and showed no effect in other durations. Hence, the supporting logic is weakened.
Bunuel
A pharmaceutical company recently completed a 12-week clinical trial of a new painkiller, in which nearly all patients completed the full dosing schedule without interruption. A researcher analyzing the results concluded that the drug had provided little meaningful relief to patients, pointing to data showing that the average reduction in pain scores across the full course of the trial was only modest.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the researcher's conclusion?

(A) Among patients who entered the trial with the highest initial pain scores, average reductions by the end of the study were greater than those observed in patients who began with only mild or moderate pain.

(B) Patients who adhered to the prescribed dosing schedule without interruption reported substantially greater pain reductions than those who missed at least one dose during the trial.

(C) Patients who were given a placebo rather than the drug reported similarly modest reductions in pain scores over the same 12-week period.

(D) Pain score reductions among patients in the trial were negligible during the first eight weeks but accelerated sharply in the final four weeks as the drug reached its full therapeutic concentration in the bloodstream.

(E) The chronic pain condition targeted by the drug is one for which all currently available treatments have historically produced only modest average reductions in standardized pain scores.

 


This question was provided by GMAT Club
for the GMAT World Cup Competition

Win over $30,000 in prizes such as Courses, Tests, Private Tutoring, and more

 


⚠️ Important: GMAT Club does not allow AI-generated posts. AI-generated solutions are not eligible for kudos, and users who post them may face moderation action, including a ban.
A - Let's take examples, Highest initial pain (H), Moderate initial pain (M),
Reduction in points out of 10, H - 3 , M - 2 . In this scenario, we cannot weaken the argument.
B - Irrelavent, compares the wrong group of paitents.
C - We have no information about what Placebo is.
D - this is exactly as per our pre-thinking number 2 and gives more information why our pre-thinking is correct.
E - Strengthener, it is telling us that the drug in the study is just like every other drug in the market. Therefore there is no fault in a drug.
User avatar
twinkle2311
Joined: 05 Nov 2021
Last visit: 31 Aug 2026
Posts: 211
Own Kudos:
246
 [1]
Given Kudos: 54
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Real Estate
GPA: 9.041
Posts: 211
Kudos: 246
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
The researcher concludes that the drug provided little meaningful relief because the avg pain reduction over the 12 week trial was only modest.

A is too narrow. Better results for 1 subgroup don't tell us much about overall conclusion. Eliminate
B doesn't matter. Nearly everyone completed the schedule, so this doesn't explain the overall avg. Eliminate
C actually strengthens the conclusion. If the placebo showed similar reductions, the drug doesn't look very effective. Eliminate
D sounds good imo. If the drug only reached its full effect in the last 4 weeks, then looking at the avg over all 12 weeks understates how much relief it eventually provided. Keep
E is tempting but it's just a comparison with existing treatments. The researcher is judging whether this drug provided meaningful relief, not whether it performed as well as other drugs. Eliminate

Ans : D
User avatar
Ilanchezhiyan
Joined: 09 Feb 2024
Last visit: 01 Sep 2026
Posts: 95
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 172
Posts: 95
Kudos: 28
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
IMO A, because, the researcher is trying to average pain reduction, there could be a case where some patients might have experienced greater pain reduction and some who experienced less pain reduction from taking the new drug. So, average might not be a good indicator of the outcome of such reasearch. Which is what option A suggests.
User avatar
AviNFC
Joined: 31 May 2023
Last visit: 09 Aug 2026
Posts: 365
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 5
Posts: 365
Kudos: 421
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
(A) Among patients who entered the trial with the highest initial pain scores, average reductions by the end of the study were greater than those observed in patients who began with only mild or moderate pain. Correct. While overall reduction was modest, the group with severe pain experienced more reduction in pain. So, the drug doesn't give relief cannot be concluded.

(B) Patients who adhered to the prescribed dosing schedule without interruption reported substantially greater pain reductions than those who missed at least one dose during the trial. Already said nearly everyone followed the routine

(C) Patients who were given a placebo rather than the drug reported similarly modest reductions in pain scores over the same 12-week period. This strengthens that the drug is useless.

(D) Pain score reductions among patients in the trial were negligible during the first eight weeks but accelerated sharply in the final four weeks as the drug reached its full therapeutic concentration in the bloodstream. Still the fact holds that after 12 weeks the pain reduction is modest.

(E) The chronic pain condition targeted by the drug is one for which all currently available treatments have historically produced only modest average reductions in standardized pain scores. If present treatments also provide modest reduction in pain, and these drug also provide modest reduction in pain then the drug doesn't provide meaning relief.

Ans A
User avatar
jkkamau
Joined: 25 May 2020
Last visit: 02 Sep 2026
Posts: 285
Own Kudos:
244
 [1]
Given Kudos: 146
Location: Kenya
GMAT 1: 730 Q50 V46
GPA: 3.5
Products:
GMAT 1: 730 Q50 V46
Posts: 285
Kudos: 244
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
A. We are not concerned with a subset of the patients but the whole group
B. This does not matter because the number of those that did not follow the instructions is neglible
C. This introduces a different drug hence irrelevant
D. If this is true then it shows the drug actually provided immense relief to the patients although it was towards the end
E. This simple states the drug is no worse than the rest so actually strengthens the conclusion
Ans D
Bunuel
A pharmaceutical company recently completed a 12-week clinical trial of a new painkiller, in which nearly all patients completed the full dosing schedule without interruption. A researcher analyzing the results concluded that the drug had provided little meaningful relief to patients, pointing to data showing that the average reduction in pain scores across the full course of the trial was only modest.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the researcher's conclusion?

(A) Among patients who entered the trial with the highest initial pain scores, average reductions by the end of the study were greater than those observed in patients who began with only mild or moderate pain.

(B) Patients who adhered to the prescribed dosing schedule without interruption reported substantially greater pain reductions than those who missed at least one dose during the trial.

(C) Patients who were given a placebo rather than the drug reported similarly modest reductions in pain scores over the same 12-week period.

(D) Pain score reductions among patients in the trial were negligible during the first eight weeks but accelerated sharply in the final four weeks as the drug reached its full therapeutic concentration in the bloodstream.

(E) The chronic pain condition targeted by the drug is one for which all currently available treatments have historically produced only modest average reductions in standardized pain scores.

 


This question was provided by GMAT Club
for the GMAT World Cup Competition

Win over $30,000 in prizes such as Courses, Tests, Private Tutoring, and more

 


⚠️ Important: GMAT Club does not allow AI-generated posts. AI-generated solutions are not eligible for kudos, and users who post them may face moderation action, including a ban.
User avatar
remdelectus
Joined: 01 Sep 2025
Last visit: 02 Sep 2026
Posts: 120
Own Kudos:
112
 [1]
Given Kudos: 6
Posts: 120
Kudos: 112
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
A-Incorrect: is irrelevant, comparing subgroups doesn't change the fact that the overall relief is seen as modest by the researcher.
B-Incorrect: The passage states that "nearly all patients completed the full dosing schedule without interruption." Comparing the compliant group to the extremely small group of non-compliant doesn't change the fact that the compliant group reduction was still only modest.
C-Incorrect: If placebo patients experienced the same modest results, this actually strengthens the researchers point that the drug itself isn't doing anything uniquely effective.
E-Incorrect: just because other market alternatives also perform poorly doesn't mean this drug is providing meaningful relief.
D-Correct: undermines the conclusion by exposing a flaw in using a simple 12-week average to measure effectiveness.
User avatar
Kinshook
User avatar
Major Poster
Joined: 03 Jun 2019
Last visit: 02 Sep 2026
Posts: 6,128
Own Kudos:
6,085
 [1]
Given Kudos: 164
Location: India
GMAT 1: 690 Q50 V34
WE:Engineering (Transportation)
Products:
GMAT 1: 690 Q50 V34
Posts: 6,128
Kudos: 6,085
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
A pharmaceutical company recently completed a 12-week clinical trail of a new painkiller, in which nearly all patients completed the full dosing schedule without interruption.

A researcher analyzing the results concluded that the drug had provided little meaningful relief to patients, pointing to data showing that the average reduction in pain scores across the full course of the trial was only modest.

Goal : Undermine the researcher's conclusion

Pre-thinking: Average reduction in pain scores across full course of the trial does not mean little meaningful relief to patients.

(A) Among patients who entered the trial with the highest initial pain scores, average reductions by the end of the study were greater than those observed in patients who began with only mild or moderate pain. Then new painkiller is more effective on one group of patients than another group of patients.
Incorrect

(B) Patients who adhered to the prescribed dosing schedule without interruption reported substantially greater pain reductions than those who missed at least one dose during the trial.
The patients who missed doses is still a small insignificant group since it is already mentioned that nearly all patients completed full dosing schedule without interruptions.
Incorrect

(C) Patients who were given a placebo rather than the drug reported similarly modest reductions in pain scores over the same 12-week period. This means that the new painkiller is as effective as a placebo. This strengthens the researcher's conclusion that drug has provided little meaningful relief to patients.
Incorrect

(D) Pain score reductions among patients in the trial were negligible during the first eight weeks but accelerated sharply in the final four weeks as the drug reached its full therapeutic concentration in the bloodstream. The drug became more effective when it reached its full therapeutic concentration in the bloodstream. It means is not ineffective in reducing pain in patients.
Correct

(E) The chronic pain condition targeted by the drug is one for which all currently available treatments have historically produced only modest average reductions in standardized pain scores. This provides a comparison of effectiveness of new painkiller with available treatments which also give similar less effective results but does not undermine the researcher's conclusion that the new painkiller provides little relief to patients.
Incorrect

IMO D
User avatar
redandme21
Joined: 14 Dec 2025
Last visit: 01 Aug 2026
Posts: 157
Own Kudos:
144
 [1]
Posts: 157
Kudos: 144
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
A It doesn't directly challenge the idea that the drug gave little relief on average.

B The text says "says nearly all patients completed the full schedule without interruption". So this doesn't explain the modest average.

C This strengthens, not undermines. If placebo does as well, the drug isn't doing much beyond placebo effect.

D Correct. The modest average doesn't prove the drug is ineffective, it only works slowly.

E This could excuse the drug, but it doesn't show the drug is more effective than the average suggests.

IMO D
User avatar
Nsanghavi
Joined: 08 Jul 2025
Last visit: 29 Aug 2026
Posts: 59
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 20
Products:
Posts: 59
Kudos: 46
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
The conclusion of the researcher is that the drug had provided little meaningful results. The question asks which of the option undermines the researcher's conclusion.

So weakens the conclusion

Option A - It mentions that the patients who entered the trial with highest pain score had greater reductions than those with lower pain score. This seems correct
Option B - It mentions that patients who completed the dose without interupption had more impact than those who did not complete it fully - This questions the assumption and hence is not correct
Option C - This option talks about alternative treatment and not the same drug and hence is not correct
Option D - This is talking about the timing of the drug - In the first 8 week little impact and in the last 4 weeks more impact - hence this is not correct
Option E - This statement supports the conclusion and does not weaken it hence is wrong.

Correct answer is Option A
User avatar
AngelUPENN
Joined: 17 Jun 2026
Last visit: 25 Jul 2026
Posts: 36
Own Kudos:
29
 [1]
Given Kudos: 1
Products:
Posts: 36
Kudos: 29
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
The answer is D because the researcher averaged pain reduction across the whole 12 weeks and concluded the drug barely worked. D says the drug did almost nothing for eight weeks and then produce a sharp drop in the last four. Averaging that over the full course flat since a real large late effect into modest looking number. So the average is misleading, and the conclusion is undermined.
Quick eliminations. A is a subgroup point but does not challenge the overall average being modest. B is undercut by the premise that nearly all patients complete nosing without interruption, so the comparison group is tiny and the effect on the average a small. C strengthens the researcher, since matching placebo results suggest the drug did nothing. E says other drugs are too weak, which is a comparison to a low bar and does not show this drug gave meaningful relief.


Bunuel
A pharmaceutical company recently completed a 12-week clinical trial of a new painkiller, in which nearly all patients completed the full dosing schedule without interruption. A researcher analyzing the results concluded that the drug had provided little meaningful relief to patients, pointing to data showing that the average reduction in pain scores across the full course of the trial was only modest.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the researcher's conclusion?

(A) Among patients who entered the trial with the highest initial pain scores, average reductions by the end of the study were greater than those observed in patients who began with only mild or moderate pain.

(B) Patients who adhered to the prescribed dosing schedule without interruption reported substantially greater pain reductions than those who missed at least one dose during the trial.

(C) Patients who were given a placebo rather than the drug reported similarly modest reductions in pain scores over the same 12-week period.

(D) Pain score reductions among patients in the trial were negligible during the first eight weeks but accelerated sharply in the final four weeks as the drug reached its full therapeutic concentration in the bloodstream.

(E) The chronic pain condition targeted by the drug is one for which all currently available treatments have historically produced only modest average reductions in standardized pain scores.

 


This question was provided by GMAT Club
for the GMAT World Cup Competition

Win over $30,000 in prizes such as Courses, Tests, Private Tutoring, and more

 


⚠️ Important: GMAT Club does not allow AI-generated posts. AI-generated solutions are not eligible for kudos, and users who post them may face moderation action, including a ban.
User avatar
gaurikhanna17
Joined: 16 Jan 2025
Last visit: 02 Sep 2026
Posts: 73
Own Kudos:
Products:
Posts: 73
Kudos: 46
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
IMO A
Since we have to weaken it we need to prove that their conclusion is wrong assuming the facts to be true.
A : well it clearly challenges the assumption, since it says that the ones with most pain had the most reductions
B: question has stated that they took the medicine without interruption --out
C: Placebo --- out of scope, not our concern here
D: if change was negligible in first 8 weeks but significant in next 4 then it will still change the average --- wrong
E: chronic pain conditions or not is not our concern -- irrelevant
   1   2   3   4   
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7399 posts
Verbal Forum Moderator
705 posts