GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 15 Oct 2019, 20:20

### 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

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

# Two investigative journalists have raised the question whether the new

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Retired Moderator
Joined: 06 Jul 2014
Posts: 1220
Location: Ukraine
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Technology
GMAT 1: 660 Q48 V33
GMAT 2: 740 Q50 V40
Two investigative journalists have raised the question whether the new  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Sep 2015, 08:36
3
00:00

Difficulty:

15% (low)

Question Stats:

79% (01:59) correct 21% (02:04) wrong based on 258 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Two investigative journalists have raised the question whether the new blood pressure drug, Transerythropaxil, has sensitized patients to develop fish allergies. The study was published last month in a major newspaper, and has been picked up by media throughout the country. Lab data has long shown that Transerythropaxil reacts strongly with Eicosapentaenoic acid, found in abundance in fish oil, and this reaction can produce biological irritants. Despite strenuous objections from Transerythropaxil's manufacturer, scientists working in federal labs have just published papers that provide conclusive evidence to the journalists' claim.

In the argument given, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

A) The first states the conclusion of the argument; the second calls that conclusion into question.
B) The first provides support for conclusion of the argument; the second calls that conclusion into question.
C) The first provides support for conclusion of the argument; the second identifies the content of that conclusion
D) The first identifies the content of the conclusion of the argument; the second provides support for that conclusion.
E) Each provides support for the conclusion of the argument

_________________
Manager
Joined: 10 Feb 2012
Posts: 55
Re: Two investigative journalists have raised the question whether the new  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Sep 2015, 08:51
Harley1980 wrote:
Two investigative journalists have raised the question whether the new blood pressure drug, Transerythropaxil, has sensitized patients to develop fish allergies. The study was published last month in a major newspaper, and has been picked up by media throughout the country. Lab data has long shown that Transerythropaxil reacts strongly with Eicosapentaenoic acid, found in abundance in fish oil, and this reaction can produce biological irritants. Despite strenuous objections from Transerythropaxil's manufacturer, scientists working in federal labs have just published papers that provide conclusive evidence to the journalists' claim.

In the argument given, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

A) The first states the conclusion of the argument; the second calls that conclusion into question.
B) The first provides support for conclusion of the argument; the second calls that conclusion into question.
C) The first provides support for conclusion of the argument; the second identifies the content of that conclusion
D) The first identifies the content of the conclusion of the argument; the second provides support for that conclusion.
E) Each provides support for the conclusion of the argument

Hi Harley1980, although i got it correct but it took me 2 mins 50 secs approx. can i get the OE for this?
Manager
Status: One Last Shot !!!
Joined: 04 May 2014
Posts: 229
Location: India
Concentration: Marketing, Social Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 630 Q44 V32
GMAT 2: 680 Q47 V35
Re: Two investigative journalists have raised the question whether the new  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Sep 2015, 09:50
2
This is how i took it:
Conclusion: Journalists' claim was correct --------1

Claim (1st BF) = whether the new blood pressure drug, Transerythropaxil, has sensitized patients to develop fish allergies? -------2

Hence, From 1 and 2,
Conclusion = Journalists' 1st BF was correct

Therefore,
1st BF = Content for the conclusion.

Additionally, 2nd BF confirms that Transerythropaxil reacts strongly with something in fish, and this can produce biological irritants. Supporting our conclusion.
_________________
One Kudos for an everlasting piece of knowledge is not a bad deal at all...

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover.
-Mark Twain
Manager
Joined: 02 Nov 2014
Posts: 182
GMAT Date: 08-04-2015
Re: Two investigative journalists have raised the question whether the new  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 Sep 2015, 00:09
2
My take:

The notable points in the passage are:
1. No conclusion is presented by the author.
2. Both the BF are premises.
3. 2nd BF provides support to resolve the issue at BF1.

Now, we can eliminate choices A,B, C and E directly because of point 1, i.e. we do not have a conclusion here. D is the only feasible choice. I would have marked and move on at this stage if I am on a negative time position in the test.
To be double sure about D, let's figure out what could be the conclusion at the first place. We have enough evidence to DOUBT that the new blood pressure drug, Transerythropaxil, has sensitized patients to develop fish allergies - which is stated in BF1. So, BF1 basically suggests how the conclusion should look like. So, D is the CORRECT answer.

Binit.
Retired Moderator
Joined: 06 Jul 2014
Posts: 1220
Location: Ukraine
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Technology
GMAT 1: 660 Q48 V33
GMAT 2: 740 Q50 V40
Re: Two investigative journalists have raised the question whether the new  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 Sep 2015, 03:33
2
grr8pe wrote:
Harley1980 wrote:
Two investigative journalists have raised the question whether the new blood pressure drug, Transerythropaxil, has sensitized patients to develop fish allergies. The study was published last month in a major newspaper, and has been picked up by media throughout the country. Lab data has long shown that Transerythropaxil reacts strongly with Eicosapentaenoic acid, found in abundance in fish oil, and this reaction can produce biological irritants. Despite strenuous objections from Transerythropaxil's manufacturer, scientists working in federal labs have just published papers that provide conclusive evidence to the journalists' claim.

In the argument given, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

A) The first states the conclusion of the argument; the second calls that conclusion into question.
B) The first provides support for conclusion of the argument; the second calls that conclusion into question.
C) The first provides support for conclusion of the argument; the second identifies the content of that conclusion
D) The first identifies the content of the conclusion of the argument; the second provides support for that conclusion.
E) Each provides support for the conclusion of the argument

Hi Harley1980, although i got it correct but it took me 2 mins 50 secs approx. can i get the OE for this?

Hello grr8pe.

In bold face questions we should firstly found conclusion and after this find how bold face parts relate to this conclusion. After this we can read the answers and found one correct.

Conclusion is should be some sentence after which we can insert word because and insert another sentence from argument (premise).

This argument is a little twisted because conclusion is disguise as a question:

Conclusion:
"the new blood pressure drug, Transerythropaxil, has sensitized patients to develop fish allergies." [because]
"Lab data has long shown that Transerythropaxil reacts strongly with Eicosapentaenoic acid, found in abundance in fish oil, and this reaction can produce biological irritants." [and because]
"scientists have just published papers that provide conclusive evidence to the journalists' claim."

So the first bold part is the conclusion. The second bold part support this conclusion because it gives positive answer on journalists question.
_________________
SC Moderator
Joined: 23 Sep 2015
Posts: 1716
Re: Two investigative journalists have raised the question whether the new  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Aug 2018, 18:29
2

Official Explanation

The credited answer is (D). The first bold statement is stated tentatively, as a question, but it is ultimately validated, and so it is the conclusion of the argument. In the second bold statement, "lab data" has to be evidence, and this evidence provides strong support for what the journalists suggest: in other words, it is evidence that supports the conclusion.

It is true that the first bold statement is the conclusion, but the second bold statement does not call it into question: by contrast, it completely supports the conclusion. Choice (A) is incorrect.

If the first bold statement is not the conclusion, it's unclear what else would be; furthermore, even if we are going to say something else is the conclusion beside the first bold statement, the two bold statements still support the same perspective, one can't be supporting something that the other calls into question. Choice (B) is incorrect.

The second bold statement is "lab data". Lab data is evidence, and can be neither a conclusion nor the content of a conclusion. We use this phrasing, "content of a conclusion", most often when the conclusion is not explicitly stated (e.g. "P says: XYZ. Then, Q disagrees with P" and Q's position, not explicitly stated, is the argument's conclusion). Choice (C) is incorrect.

Choice (E) is tempting, but nothing else in the paragraph besides the first bold statement could serve as the conclusion. Both the second bold sentence and the second half of the concluding sentence are just statements of scientific data, which are evidence, not conclusions. Choice (E) is incorrect.
_________________
Thanks!
Do give some kudos.

Simple strategy:
“Once you’ve eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”

GMAT Ninja YouTube! Series 1| GMAT Ninja YouTube! Series 2 | How to Improve GMAT Quant from Q49 to a Perfect Q51 | Time management

My Notes:
Reading comprehension | Critical Reasoning | Absolute Phrases | Subjunctive Mood
Re: Two investigative journalists have raised the question whether the new   [#permalink] 08 Aug 2018, 18:29
Display posts from previous: Sort by