Last visit was: 24 Apr 2026, 15:32 It is currently 24 Apr 2026, 15:32
Home
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
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.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
Back to Forum
Create Topic
User avatar
Carcass
User avatar
Board of Directors
Joined: 01 Sep 2010
Last visit: 23 Apr 2026
Posts: 4,709
Own Kudos:
37,846
 [22]
Given Kudos: 4,925
Posts: 4,709
Kudos: 37,846
 [22]
A new study provides more support for the hypothesis that 14 Apr 2013, 12:09
6
Kudos
Add Kudos
16
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
00:00
Start Timer
Pause Timer
Resume Timer
Show Answer
Hide
Show
History
C
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!

Difficulty:

85% (hard)

Question Stats:

42% (01:46) correct 58% (01:45) wrong based on 701 sessions

History

Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
A new study provides more support for the hypothesis that social support may strengthen people’s immune system. This study actually found that social isolation and loneliness can impair the immune system. According to the findings of the study, lonely and socially-isolated first-year students mounted a weaker immune response to the flu shot than other students.

The argument is flawed primarily because

(A) it assumes that there can only be one cause for an effect

(B) it assumes that a necessary condition for an event is a sufficient condition for that event to occur

(C) it assumes that if a cause for an effect is removed, then the effect will in turn get reversed

(D) it mistakes a symptom for a cause

(E) it is based on unverified and subjective data
ShowHide Answer
Official Answer
C
Most Helpful Reply
User avatar
pqhai
User avatar
Retired Moderator
Joined: 16 Jun 2012
Last visit: 26 Nov 2015
Posts: 863
Own Kudos:
8,939
 [8]
Given Kudos: 123
Location: United States
Posts: 863
Kudos: 8,939
 [8]
A new study provides more support for the hypothesis that 14 Apr 2013, 15:49
5
Kudos
Add Kudos
2
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
carcass
A new study provides more support for the hypothesis that social support may strengthen people’s immune system. This study actually found that social isolation and loneliness can impair the immune system. According to the findings of the study, lonely and socially-isolated first-year students mounted a weaker immune response to the flu shot than other students.

The argument is flawed primarily because

(A) it assumes that there can only be one cause for an effect

(B) it assumes that a necessary condition for an event is a sufficient condition for that event to occur

(C) it assumes that if a cause for an effect is removed, then the effect will in turn get reversed

(D) it mistakes a symptom for a cause

(E) it is based on unverified and subjective data
Show more

Tough question!

This is weaken question.

Premise: social support may strengthen immune system. KEY
Premise: social isolation and loneliness can impair the immune system
Conclusion: lonely and socially-isolated first-year students mounted a weaker immune response to the flu shot

Assumption: X helps Y --> no X will weaken Y. It's wrong because social may support strengthen immune system, but it doesn't mean No social support will weaken immune system.

C clearly states this flaw.

Hope it helps.
User avatar
Carcass
User avatar
Board of Directors
Joined: 01 Sep 2010
Last visit: 23 Apr 2026
Posts: 4,709
Own Kudos:
37,846
 [5]
Given Kudos: 4,925
Posts: 4,709
Kudos: 37,846
 [5]
A new study provides more support for the hypothesis that 14 Apr 2013, 16:45
4
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
pqhai
carcass
A new study provides more support for the hypothesis that social support may strengthen people’s immune system. This study actually found that social isolation and loneliness can impair the immune system. According to the findings of the study, lonely and socially-isolated first-year students mounted a weaker immune response to the flu shot than other students.

The argument is flawed primarily because

(A) it assumes that there can only be one cause for an effect

(B) it assumes that a necessary condition for an event is a sufficient condition for that event to occur

(C) it assumes that if a cause for an effect is removed, then the effect will in turn get reversed

(D) it mistakes a symptom for a cause

(E) it is based on unverified and subjective data

Tough question!

This is weaken question.

Premise: social support may strengthen immune system. KEY
Premise: social isolation and loneliness can impair the immune system
Conclusion: lonely and socially-isolated first-year students mounted a weaker immune response to the flu shot

Assumption: X helps Y --> no X will weaken Y. It's wrong because social may support strengthen immune system, but it doesn't mean No social support will weaken immune system.

C clearly states this flaw.


Hope it helps.
Show more


be careful when you say a weaken question and the stem talks about flaw in the reasoning.

Because weaken ----> you weaken the conclusion RELATED to the overll structure of the stimulus. And in weaken category question be careful to weaken only and exclusively the conclusion

In flaw question -----> you weaken directly the assumption. Basically is the contrary of the assumption.

They seem the same thing but need different strategy, though slightly.
General Discussion
User avatar
Zarrolou
User avatar
Joined: 02 Sep 2012
Last visit: 11 Dec 2013
Posts: 842
Own Kudos:
5,187
Given Kudos: 219
Status:Far, far away!
Location: Italy
Concentration: Finance, Entrepreneurship
GPA: 3.8
Posts: 842
Kudos: 5,187
A new study provides more support for the hypothesis that 14 Apr 2013, 12:33
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
A new study provides more support for the hypothesis that social support may strengthen people’s immune system. This study actually found that social isolation and loneliness can impair the immune system. According to the findings of the study, lonely and socially-isolated first-year students mounted a weaker immune response to the flu shot than other students.

The argument is flawed primarily because

The problem IMO relies in the red part of the text. In the first part the conclusion of the study is presented, and then it is said that, according to the conclusion, lonely students have a weaker immune system. Before reading the answers it's clear that a weak point is the fact that other factors can contribute to this condition.

IMO B
(B) it assumes that a necessary condition for an event is a sufficient condition for that event to occur
It says that a necessary condition ( loneliness) for an event (weak system) is a sufficient condition (no other factors involved).

Waiting for OA...
User avatar
Carcass
User avatar
Board of Directors
Joined: 01 Sep 2010
Last visit: 23 Apr 2026
Posts: 4,709
Own Kudos:
37,846
 [1]
Given Kudos: 4,925
Posts: 4,709
Kudos: 37,846
 [1]
A new study provides more support for the hypothesis that 14 Apr 2013, 13:39
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Zarrolou
A new study provides more support for the hypothesis that social support may strengthen people’s immune system. This study actually found that social isolation and loneliness can impair the immune system. According to the findings of the study, lonely and socially-isolated first-year students mounted a weaker immune response to the flu shot than other students.

The argument is flawed primarily because

The problem IMO relies in the red part of the text. In the first part the conclusion of the study is presented, and then it is said that, according to the conclusion, lonely students have a weaker immune system. Before reading the answers it's clear that a weak point is the fact that other factors can contribute to this condition.

IMO B
(B) it assumes that a necessary condition for an event is a sufficient condition for that event to occur
It says that a necessary condition ( loneliness) for an event (weak system) is a sufficient condition (no other factors involved).

Waiting for OA...
Show more


Hi

here B is wrong because neither is stated explicity nor implied about sufficiency and so on.....

C instead basically says that if you are alone, this scenari leads to an unbalance immune system but if you have the latter is not true that you have the first scenario (loneliness).

OR

Just because the cause is removed does not mean the effect will get reversed. It might remain unchanged.

C is the OA indeed ;)
User avatar
ssbisht
User avatar
Joined: 14 Apr 2013
Last visit: 23 May 2013
Posts: 36
Own Kudos:
212
 [2]
Given Kudos: 3
GMAT 1: 740 Q50 V40
GMAT 1: 740 Q50 V40
Posts: 36
Kudos: 212
 [2]
A new study provides more support for the hypothesis that 14 Apr 2013, 22:49
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
A new study provides more support for the hypothesis that social support may strengthen people’s immune system. This study actually found that social isolation and loneliness can impair the immune system. According to the findings of the study, lonely and socially-isolated first-year students mounted a weaker immune response to the flu shot than other students.

The argument is flawed primarily because

(A) it assumes that there can only be one cause for an effect
Nowhere is this stated or implied so this cant be the answer

(B) it assumes that a necessary condition for an event is a sufficient condition for that event to occur
The argument is not saying that loneliness is the necessary condition for a weaker immune system so this choice us also eliminated.

(C) it assumes that if a cause for an effect is removed, then the effect will in turn get reversed
This is closest to the argument in the passage as students who are not isolated (other students) don’t have a weaker response to flu shots.
But this should not mean that if loneliness is removed than the immune system will get ok and hence this is the flaw in the reasoning
(D) it mistakes a symptom for a cause
Cause is isolation and loneliness so this option is not possible.
(E) it is based on unverified and subjective data
Nowhere is it said that the data is unverified.
avatar
vmdce129907
avatar
Joined: 06 Mar 2012
Last visit: 18 Mar 2014
Posts: 28
Own Kudos:
178
Given Kudos: 12
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, International Business
GPA: 3.4
Posts: 28
Kudos: 178
A new study provides more support for the hypothesis that 15 Apr 2013, 06:45
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
carcass
A new study provides more support for the hypothesis that social support may strengthen people’s immune system. This study actually found that social isolation and loneliness can impair the immune system. According to the findings of the study, lonely and socially-isolated first-year students mounted a weaker immune response to the flu shot than other students.

The argument is flawed primarily because

(A) it assumes that there can only be one cause for an effect

(B) it assumes that a necessary condition for an event is a sufficient condition for that event to occur

(C) it assumes that if a cause for an effect is removed, then the effect will in turn get reversed

(D) it mistakes a symptom for a cause

(E) it is based on unverified and subjective data
Show more


+1 C
Rephrasing the argument -
A study - 'lonely and socially-isolated students -- > a weaker immune response' provides support for the hypothesis - 'Social support may strengthen people’s immune system' -- clearly indicates the flaw because it assumes that if a cause (social isolation) for an effect (Weak immune system) is removed, then the effect will in turn get reversed

Press +1 Kudos if my post helped
User avatar
kinjiGC
User avatar
Joined: 03 Feb 2013
Last visit: 12 Oct 2025
Posts: 789
Own Kudos:
2,736
Given Kudos: 567
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Strategy
Schools: Tepper '17 (M$) W.P. Carey '17 (A$) NUS '17 (A)
GMAT 1: 760 Q49 V44
GPA: 3.88
WE:Engineering (Computer Software)
Products:
My Reviews
Schools: Tepper '17 (M$) W.P. Carey '17 (A$) NUS '17 (A)
GMAT 1: 760 Q49 V44
Posts: 789
Kudos: 2,736
A new study provides more support for the hypothesis that 19 Jan 2014, 07:33
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
carcass
A new study provides more support for the hypothesis that social support may strengthen people’s immune system. This study actually found that social isolation and loneliness can impair the immune system. According to the findings of the study, lonely and socially-isolated first-year students mounted a weaker immune response to the flu shot than other students.

The argument is flawed primarily because

(A) it assumes that there can only be one cause for an effect

(B) it assumes that a necessary condition for an event is a sufficient condition for that event to occur

(C) it assumes that if a cause for an effect is removed, then the effect will in turn get reversed

(D) it mistakes a symptom for a cause

(E) it is based on unverified and subjective data
Show more

The argument is flawed because it assumes there cannot be other reasons which can cause the same effect.

Both A and C says the same. How can C) be OA?
User avatar
gauravkaushik8591
User avatar
Joined: 24 Oct 2013
Last visit: 05 Jul 2017
Posts: 123
Own Kudos:
155
 [1]
Given Kudos: 83
Location: Canada
Schools: LBS '18
GMAT 1: 720 Q49 V38
WE:Design (Transportation)
Schools: LBS '18
GMAT 1: 720 Q49 V38
Posts: 123
Kudos: 155
 [1]
A new study provides more support for the hypothesis that 20 Jun 2014, 14:48
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
kinjiGC
carcass
A new study provides more support for the hypothesis that social support may strengthen people’s immune system. This study actually found that social isolation and loneliness can impair the immune system. According to the findings of the study, lonely and socially-isolated first-year students mounted a weaker immune response to the flu shot than other students.

The argument is flawed primarily because

(A) it assumes that there can only be one cause for an effect

(B) it assumes that a necessary condition for an event is a sufficient condition for that event to occur

(C) it assumes that if a cause for an effect is removed, then the effect will in turn get reversed

(D) it mistakes a symptom for a cause

(E) it is based on unverified and subjective data

The argument is flawed because it assumes there cannot be other reasons which can cause the same effect.

Both A and C says the same. How can C) be OA?
Show more


Argument says 'This study actually found that social isolation and loneliness can impair the immune system'

A) it assumes that there can only be one cause for an effect

No, it doesn't assume that in any way. It just says social isolation and loneliness CAN impair the immune system. Whereas, what you are saying would be a paraphrase of 'This study actually found that ONLY social isolation and loneliness can impair the immune system'
User avatar
m3equals333
User avatar
Retired Moderator
Joined: 20 Dec 2013
Last visit: 18 Jun 2016
Posts: 141
Own Kudos:
156
Given Kudos: 71
Location: United States (NY)
Schools: Johnson '17 (M) Stanford '17 (D) Stern '17 (D) UVA Darden (WD) Haas EWMBA '18 (A)
GMAT 1: 640 Q44 V34
GMAT 2: 720 Q49 V40
GMAT 3: 710 Q48 V40
GPA: 3.16
WE:Consulting (Finance: Venture Capital)
Products:
My Reviews
Schools: Johnson '17 (M) Stanford '17 (D) Stern '17 (D) UVA Darden (WD) Haas EWMBA '18 (A)
GMAT 3: 710 Q48 V40
Posts: 141
Kudos: 156
A new study provides more support for the hypothesis that 21 Jun 2014, 12:53
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
I picked C as it was the closest, but a bit borderline imo. The cause for effect is not only removed, but also reversed (as is the effect). Maybe in logic terms, these two are equivalent...
User avatar
himanshujovi
User avatar
Joined: 28 Apr 2014
Last visit: 29 Aug 2016
Posts: 139
Own Kudos:
77
Given Kudos: 46
Posts: 139
Kudos: 77
A new study provides more support for the hypothesis that 25 Jun 2014, 03:16
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
I am confused on why not A. The stem says

According to the findings of the study, lonely and socially-isolated first-year students mounted a weaker immune response to the flu shot than other students

Isn't this assuming that social isolation could be the only cause for these students to have weaker immune response
User avatar
cssk
User avatar
Joined: 09 Apr 2013
Last visit: 01 Jun 2016
Posts: 71
Own Kudos:
366
Given Kudos: 24
Location: India
WE:Supply Chain Management (Consulting)
Posts: 71
Kudos: 366
A new study provides more support for the hypothesis that 25 Jun 2014, 06:30
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Here is my approach.

Lets identify the cause and effect in the argument.

Cause: Social isolation

Effect: Weaker immune system

Based on this cause-effect relationship, the argument concludes that social support strengthens immune system.

So the conclusion basically assumes that if cause is removed (or social support is improved), then the effect will be reversed (immune system will be strengthened).

Hence C is the answer.
avatar
Alpha420
avatar
Joined: 16 Jul 2020
Last visit: 16 Nov 2022
Posts: 24
Own Kudos:
5
Given Kudos: 248
Location: India
Schools: Ivey '22 (D) Queens'22 (A$) Rotman '24
GMAT 1: 660 Q49 V33
GMAT 2: 690 Q49 V35
Schools: Ivey '22 (D) Queens'22 (A$) Rotman '24
GMAT 2: 690 Q49 V35
Posts: 24
Kudos: 5
A new study provides more support for the hypothesis that 02 Apr 2021, 01:22
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
gauravkaushik8591
kinjiGC
carcass
A new study provides more support for the hypothesis that social support may strengthen people’s immune system. This study actually found that social isolation and loneliness can impair the immune system. According to the findings of the study, lonely and socially-isolated first-year students mounted a weaker immune response to the flu shot than other students.

The argument is flawed primarily because

(A) it assumes that there can only be one cause for an effect

(B) it assumes that a necessary condition for an event is a sufficient condition for that event to occur

(C) it assumes that if a cause for an effect is removed, then the effect will in turn get reversed

(D) it mistakes a symptom for a cause

(E) it is based on unverified and subjective data

The argument is flawed because it assumes there cannot be other reasons which can cause the same effect.

Both A and C says the same. How can C) be OA?


Argument says 'This study actually found that social isolation and loneliness can impair the immune system'

A) it assumes that there can only be one cause for an effect

No, it doesn't assume that in any way. It just says social isolation and loneliness CAN impair the immune system. Whereas, what you are saying would be a paraphrase of 'This study actually found that ONLY social isolation and loneliness can impair the immune system'
Show more

The second line in argument -"This study actually found that social isolation and loneliness can impair the immune system." - this line is basically derived by negating the result given in first line that social support sttengthens the argument. And then the study conducted on first year students has given to substantiate the claim that since social support system was absent,the students showed weaker immune response. 2 things to note here :

1. Line 2 is negation of line 1. However this is not correct. Absence of social support system doesn't imply that effect will also get reversed i.e. weak immune system. What if immune system remains same?
2. The study's result is then used to justify the misinterpreted conclusion that students showed weaker reponse because they did not have social support system. It is possible that weak immune system was due to some other reason and not really social support eg. Say, they were not eating properly and hence their immunity was impacted. It can be just a coincidence those students were also socially isolated.

If #2 is valid, then isn't A also logical flaw?

Posted from my mobile device
User avatar
VerbalBot
User avatar
Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Last visit: 04 Jan 2021
Posts: 19,424
Own Kudos:
1,010
Posts: 19,424
Kudos: 1,010
A new study provides more support for the hypothesis that 21 Apr 2025, 08:47
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot:

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

This post was generated automatically.
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7391 posts
AbhishekP220108
504 posts
bhanu29
358 posts