A law is being proposed that would require the installation

Question

A law is being proposed that would require the installation of defibrillators, which are used to treat heart attacks, in new restaurants. However, a leading local restaurant owner opposes the law, saying that the vast majority of preventable heart attack deaths can be prevented by the timely employment of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR).

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the restaurant owner's argument?

A. Most individuals have no formal training in cardiopulmonary resuscitation. 
 B. Since new restaurants are but a small fraction of all restaurants in the area, the new law would be extremely narrow in scope. 
 C. The installation of defibrillators in new restaurants costs significantly less than the installation of fire suppression equipment. 
 D.In the area that the proposed law would cover, the average time required for emergency personnel to respond to medical emergencies was far less than that of the whole country.
 E. The largest proportion of heart attack deaths result from situations in which no cardiopulmonary resuscitation-trained individuals are present.

daagh · Accepted Answer

A law is being proposed that would require the installation of defibrillators, which are used to treat heart attacks, in new restaurants. However, a leading local restaurateur opposes the law, saying that the vast majority of preventable heart attack deaths can be prevented by the timely employment of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR).

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the restaurateur’s argument?

Almost individuals have no formal training in cardiopulmonary resuscitation. 
B.Since new restaurants are but a small fraction of all restaurants in the area, the new law would be extremely narrow in scope. 
C.The installation of defibrillators in new restaurants costs significantly less than the installation of fire suppression equipment. 
D.In the area that the proposed law would cover, the average time required for emergency personnel to respond to medical emergencies was far less than that of the whole country. 
E.The largest proportion of heart attack deaths result from situations in which no cardiopulmonary resuscitation-trained individuals are present

While dumping BCD as irrelevant, and limiting the discussion to between A and E, I would rather lean more E than on A.

The hotelier says that CPR is enough and hence he opposes the law.

In order to weaken his stand, we need to say that CPR may be good but still it is not guaranteed that we can be confident about CPR, since CPR trained people aren’t going to be handily available.

A claims that most individuals have no formal training in CPR, hence CPR may not be enough. But it may not weaken the hoteliers’ stand; The word most still leaves a gap and a few that are left out of A’s ambit might still be available in and around the hotel. So insufficient training can only take us half across the well. On the contrary E point blank avers that if the trained person is not going to be available instantly, then death is sure to occur. This directly enhances the need to comply with the law and hence the Hotelier’s reasoning that we do not need the gadgets can be dislodged.

The point that you may be missing is that, the assumption that only CPR can save patients from death in heart attacks. CPR is only one of the methods that can save. Between the error- prone human being and a gadget, the gadget is more reliable.

MOKSH · Answer

A law is being proposed that would require the installation of defibrillators, which are used to treat heart attacks, in new restaurants. However, a leading local restauranteur opposes the law, saying that the vast majority of preventable heart attack deaths can be prevented by the timely employment of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR).
Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the restauranteur's argument?

Most individuals have no formal training in cardiopulmonary resuscitation.
Since new restaurants are but a small fraction of all restaurants in the area, the new law would be extremely narrow in scope.
The installation of defibrillators in new restaurants costs significantly less than the installation of fire suppression equipment.
In the area that the proposed law would cover, the average time required for emergency personnel to respond to medical emergencies was far less than that of the whole country.
The largest proportion of heart attack deaths result from situations in which no cardiopulmonary resuscitation-trained individuals are present.

I am struggling between A & E rest are OFS
Please differentiate the both options effectively , so that it could easily understood .

Thanks in advance

Whatup780 · Answer

A law is being proposed that would require the installation of defibrillators, which are used to treat heart attacks, in new restaurants. However, a leading local restaurant owner opposes the law, saying that the vast majority of preventable heart attack deaths can be prevented by the timely employment of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR).

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the restaurant owner's argument?

A. Most individuals have no formal training in cardiopulmonary resuscitation.
B. Since new restaurants are but a small fraction of all restaurants in the area, the new law would be extremely narrow in scope.
C. The installation of defibrillators in new restaurants costs significantly less than the installation of fire suppression equipment.
D.In the area that the proposed law would cover, the average time required for emergency personnel to respond to medical emergencies was far less than that of the whole country.
E. The largest proportion of heart attack deaths result from situations in which no cardiopulmonary resuscitation-trained individuals are present.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Argument: the vast majority of preventable heart attack deaths can be prevented by the timely employment of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR)

A weakens the argument
B Irrelevant
C Irrelevant, Installing fire suppression, hopefully, has nothing to do with CPR :-D

D Irrelevant
E weakens the argument

Have to decide between A & E. Question asks "Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the restaurant owner's argument?"
- IMO E is the right answer because it refers to heart attack deaths, which has serious impact, as opposed to A, which only says most have no training.

D Irrelevant E weakens the argument Have to decide between A & E. Question asks "Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the restaurant owner's argument?" - IMO E is the right answer because it refers to heart attack deaths, which has serious impact, as opposed to A, which only says most have no training.

getgyan · Answer

+1A

Premise - A law is being proposed that would require the installation of defibrillators, which are used to treat heart attacks, in new restaurants.

Conclusion - However, a leading local restaurant owner opposes the law, saying that the vast majority of preventable heart attack deaths can be prevented by the timely employment of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR).

Anything which weakens the conclusion is our answer i.e anything which proves that vast majority of preventable heart attack deaths can NOT be prevented by the timely employment of CPR is our answer

A. Most individuals have no formal training in cardiopulmonary resuscitation. (Good option, if people do not know about CPR the conclusion becomes weak, let us keep this option for some time)
B. Since new restaurants are but a small fraction of all restaurants in the area, the new law would be extremely narrow in scope. (Irrelevant)
C. The installation of defibrillators in new restaurants costs significantly less than the installation of fire suppression equipment. (Fire suppression?? Out of Scope)
D. In the area that the proposed law would cover, the average time required for emergency personnel to respond to medical emergencies was far less than that of the whole country. (It is not related to CPR and does not solve our purpose)
E. The largest proportion of heart attack deaths result from situations in which no cardiopulmonary resuscitation-trained individuals are present. (It strengthen the conclusion i.e it might have been possible to avoid a few deaths if CPR trained individuals would have been present)

The only option we are left with is option A which should be our answer.

Why is the OA E? What am I doing worng here?

rajathpanta · Answer

The ans is E.

You eliminate BCD as they are out of scope.

Now between A and E- A talks about being trained in CPR which is not of relevance here. We are talking about deaths due to heart attacks.

If you look at E it says people are dying in which no CPR trained guys are present. That means its better to install the Defibrillators. This will weaken the restaurant owner's stand and this is what we want.

Hope this is clear.

semwal · Answer

A law is being proposed that would require the installation of defibrillators, which are used to treat heart attacks, in new restaurants. However, a leading local restaurateur opposes the law, saying that the vast majority of preventable heart attack deaths can be prevented by the timely employment of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR).

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the restaurateur’s argument?

Both A and E are prospective answers......
A. says "  most individuals   have no   formal   training in cardiopulmonary resuscitation".   Most people may not be needed, just one will do. No formal training required... basic training will do......

E. says " The largest proportion of heart attack deaths result from situations in which no cardiopulmonary resuscitation-trained individuals are present ". So, if a cardiopulmonary resuscitation-trained individual is not present, which is possible, likely hood of death is high.....   Hence restaurateur's argument weakens.....

semwal · Answer

A law is being proposed that would require the  installation of defibrillators, which are used to treat heart attacks,  in new restaurants. However, a leading local restaurant owner opposes the law, saying that the vast majority of  preventable heart attack deaths can be prevented by the timely employment of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR).

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the restaurant owner's argument?

A. Most individuals have no formal training in cardiopulmonary resuscitation.  most people dont need to know... even one will do... wrong 
B. Since new restaurants are but a small fraction of all restaurants in the area, the new law would be extremely narrow in scope.  irrelevant.. 
C. The installation of defibrillators in new restaurants costs significantly less than the installation of fire suppression equipment.  cost irrelevant 
D.In the area that the proposed law would cover, the average time required for emergency personnel to respond to medical emergencies was far less than that of the whole country.  relative responce time irrelevant 
E. The largest proportion of heart attack deaths result from situations in which no cardiopulmonary resuscitation-trained individuals are present.  correct.... in such a scenario if DEFIBRILLATOR WAS AVAILABLE the life could be saved..

chanakya84 · Answer

My take is Option E. I took a simple approach.
Question Stem:
A law requires installation of defibrillators. However, a leading restaurant owner oppose the law and states that timely employment of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) will prevent the heart attack.

Option B, C, and D are straight away out. Let me know if you need me to explain those options.

Option A: Most individuals have no formal training in cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Okay, but what if that even though the individuals had no formal training but they can still operate the CPR (by reading user manual). Formal training is not a prerequisite to use the CPR. The option leaves that possibility.

Option E: "The largest proportion of heart attack deaths result from situations in which no cardiopulmonary resuscitation-trained individuals are present". Hmm interesting. Okay, restaurant owner (who oppose the law), you have the CPR. But what if the heart attacks are actually caused by the CPR since during the emergency situation no CPR trained individuals are present.
E is the correct answer.

Thanks,
Chanakya

Hit kudos if you like the explanation!

saunak123 · Answer

I have narrowed it down to A and E. IMO,
 A is not the correct answer because we don't require most individuals to have formal training in CPR. Even if a few are there, they can provide CPR services to the needy. We don't require say like 50% of the population to know CPR procedures.

E is correct because if CPR trained individuals are not there where majority of heart attacks ocur, then this will definitely weaken the argument.

anupam87 · Answer

Took more than 2 minutes to answer this question. I was struggling between A and E. Selected E just because it is considering both - deaths from heart attack and availability of someone who can perform the CPR.

Mavisdu1017 · Answer

A and E seem to be same meaning to me. As E says “no cardiopulmonary resuscitation-trained individuals are present”, that suggests CPR need to be trained, so why is A wrong? Pls offer OE.

Sahith_Manikanta · Answer

I'm guessing the answer should be A. The argument talks about employing people who know CPR, which means E can be avoided. However if very little people know how to perform a CPR, it becomes difficult to employ such people and installing the defib will be easier.

IMO A.

Bunuel, GMATNinja, hopefully someone can look into this.

IMO A.

Bunuel ,  GMATNinja , hopefully someone can look into this.

Hitesh2001 · Answer

Need explanation on how to eliminate option D.

sayan640 · Answer

While option D says that the time required to respond is very less , nowhere in the passage has it been mentioned that the CPR personnel respond very quickly ( or quick enough to meet the requirement of the situation ). Hence option D is incorrect.

Hitesh2001

Need explanation on how to eliminate option D.

egmat · Answer

Hi Hitesh2001,

Great question. Let's look at Option  D  carefully.

D  says: In the area covered by the law, emergency personnel respond to medical emergencies much faster than the national average.

Now, think about what the restaurant owner is arguing: 'We don't need defibrillators because CPR can handle most preventable heart attack deaths.'

Does faster emergency response time WEAKEN this argument? Actually, it does the opposite. If paramedics (who carry their own defibrillators and advanced equipment) arrive quickly, that gives the restaurant owner MORE reason to say defibrillators aren't needed in restaurants. Fast response times would SUPPORT or STRENGTHEN the owner's case, not weaken it.

So  D  fails on  two  levels:
 1.  It doesn't attack the owner's claim about CPR being  sufficient .
 2.  If anything, it helps the owner's position by suggesting professional help arrives fast anyway.

Contrast this with  E : Most heart attack deaths happen when NO CPR-trained people are present. This directly destroys the owner's argument. The owner says CPR is the solution, but  E  shows that in real-world situations, there's nobody around who can actually perform CPR. This means defibrillators — which are designed for use even by untrained individuals — become critical.

Key takeaway:  When eliminating answer choices on  Weaken questions , always check the direction of the effect. If an answer choice strengthens or is neutral to the argument, it's wrong — no matter how relevant-sounding the information is.

Common mistake:  Picking  D  because it sounds related to emergency response, without checking whether it actually weakens or  strengthens  the argument.

Answer: E

A law is being proposed that would require the installation

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

A law is being proposed that would require the installation

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards