A study of high blood pressure treatments found that certain meditatio

Question

A study of high blood pressure treatments found that certain meditation techniques and the most commonly prescribed drugs are equally effective if the selected treatment is followed as directed over the long term. Half the patients given drugs soon stop taking them regularly, whereas eighty percent of the study's participants who were taught meditation techniques were still regularly using them five years later. Therefore, the meditation treatment is the one likely to produce the best results.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

(A) People who have high blood pressure are usually advised by their physicians to make changes in diet that have been found in many cases to reduce the severity of the condition.

(B) The participants in the study were selected in part on the basis of their willingness to use meditation techniques.

(C) Meditation techniques can reduce the blood pressure of people who do not suffer from high blood pressure.

(D) Some of the participants in the study whose high blood pressure was controlled through meditation techniques were physicians.

(E) Many people with dangerously high blood pressure are unaware of their condition.

GMATPrep Code  :  VCR005617

The conclusion states that since people who choose meditation are less likely to abandon it, meditation is the one likely to produce better results.

I wanted to ask you about other potential weakeners:

1) Meditation takes more than 10 years to show results , but most people who practice meditation are unlikely to continue for so long.

2)The people who discontinued their medication treatment did so because they were relieved of their symptoms.

3) The recommended duration for meditation is 10 years,almost twice as long as that of medications.

egmat · Accepted Answer

Good inputs from the community members so far. Let me add my two cents. First of all, we need to understand what a weakener can or cannot attack. A weakener cannot attack the information given i.e. premises. So, if it is given that the study found that both drugs and meditations techniques are equally effective when followed over the long run, we cannot say directly "No. They are not equally effective when followed over the long run". However, what we can do is that we can list a flaw in the methodology of the research in finding the effectiveness of drugs and meditation techniques. Similarly, if it is given that the study found x% people kept using drugs and y% kept using meditation techniques, we cannot say "No. less than x% used drugs OR less than y% used meditations techniques". However again, what we can do is find a flaw in the methodology used to arrive at the numbers or as this question does - make the numbers irrelevant by suggesting that the initial sample for the study was not representative. Now, coming back to the weakeners suggested: 1. Meditation takes more than 10 years to show results , but most people who practice meditation are unlikely to continue for so long. - This is not a weakener. The conclusion is comparison between drugs and meditation techniques - who is the best one out there? (Remember, the conclusion is finding out the best between the two; not finding the one that cures. May be none of them cures completely). This option statement only talks about meditation techniques and suggest that they cannot cure. However, what about drugs? Can they cure? More importantly, can drugs cure better than meditation techniques? This statement does not suggest anything in this regard. 2. The people who discontinued their medication treatment did so because they were relieved of their symptoms - Not a weakener. We are given that both drugs and meditation techniques are equally effective. This presents information that goes against the information given. 3. The recommended duration for meditation is 10 years,almost twice as long as that of medications - Not a weakener. Goes against the passage. The passage does not differentiate between the duration of drugs and of meditation techniques. Hope this helps

Thanks, Chiranjeve

subrataroy0210 · Answer

A study of high blood pressure treatments found that certain meditation techniques and the most commonly prescribed drugs are equally effective if the selected treatment is followed as directed over the long term.  Half the patients given drugs soon stop taking them regularly, whereas eighty percent of the study's participants who were taught meditation techniques were still regularly using them five years later .  Therefore, the meditation treatment is the one likely to produce the best results .

Which of the following, if true, most seriously  weakens  the argument?

If we are to derive a conclusion from a study, then the participants of the study should be unbiased. An option that shows that the sample space was skewed will weaken the argument.

A. People who have high blood pressure are usually advised by their physicians to make changes in diet that have been found in many cases to reduce the severity of the condition.  If we want to use 'the change in diet' as an option to weaken the argument, then we need to show that 'change in diet plan' is more effective than the meditation; the option only mentions that the change in diet reduces the severity of the condition and establishes no relative performance on effectiveness. 
B. The participants in the study were selected in part on the basis of their willingness to use meditation techniques.  The sample space was biased. 
C. Meditation techniques can reduce the blood pressure of people who do not suffer from high blood pressure.  We are dealing with people having high blood pressure. 
D. Some of the participants in the study whose high blood pressure was controlled through meditation techniques were physicians.  Whether some of the participants were physicians don't change anything let alone weakening the argument. 
E. Many people with dangerously high blood pressure are unaware of their condition.  OFS

Option B

pqhai · Answer

Hi 12bhang

Thanks for raising good questions!

In order to "evaluate" your potential options, let analyze the original stimulus first:

ANALYZE THE STIMULUS:

Fact: meditation techniques and the most commonly prescribed drugs are equally effective to treat high blood pressure if the selected treatment is followed as directed over the long term. 
Fact: Half the patients given drugs soon stop taking them regularly, whereas eighty percent of the study's participants who were taught meditation techniques were still regularly using them five years later. 
Conclusion: The meditation treatment is the one likely to produce the best results.

Assumption: The more people use the selected treatment  for long term , the better results the selected treatment produces.

To weaken the conclusion,  you need to show that more people use meditation for long time is not because the treatment produces better results. (probably, because people like using it, or are willing to follow....)

YOUR POTENTIAL OPTIONS:

1) Meditation takes more than 10 years to show results , but most people who practice meditation are unlikely to continue for so long. 
This options wants to say almost people cannot follow the meditation techniques until it shows results. Does it weaken the conclusion? 
- In order to weaken the conclusion, you should demonstrate "more people following the treatment  does not mean  the treatment is the best". However, this option just shows that almost people cannot follow the treatment. The "good" weakener is the one which still sticks to the stimulus (people are able to follow the treatment for long term - the first sentence clearly says "a study found that....") and show the weakness of the conclusion. This option, however, says "people  cannot follow .." ==> It violates the stimulus. So I would say this option is not a weakener per GMAT standards.
- In addition, GMAT hardly considers an extreme option (option with most, almost, all, every...) a correct answer.

2)The people who discontinued their medication treatment did so because they were relieved of their symptoms. 
Does not help to weaken the conclusion, because it's out scope. The fact that "people discontinued their meditation  because they were relieved .." does not attack the conclusion at all.

3) The recommended duration for meditation is 10 years, almost twice as long as that of medications. 
This option is also not a weakener. This option does not attack the point "The more people use the selected treatment for long term, the selected treatment is the best". It just says how long each treatment will take. what if meditation is "really" good, so a lot of people will follow it for 10 years. Otherwise, drugs even take half time, but produce worst result, so a lot of people discontinue using them. ==> If that's the case (meditation  is actually better  than drugs), (3) cannot be a weakener.

Hope it helps.

Priyanka2018 · Answer

Hi,

Can anyone please tell me why C is incorrect?

Thanks in Advance

GMATNinja · Answer

Both the conclusion of the passage ("the meditation treatment is the one likely to produce the best results") and the evidence for that conclusion are given in the context of treating people with high blood pressure. (C) gives us information about "people who  do not  suffer from high blood pressure." So, (C) does not impact the conclusion of the passage as it is written, because it does not give us any information about the relevant population.

Even if (C) did have some impact on the passage, it is unclear how it could  weaken  the conclusion. The fact that meditation helps another population does not prevent it from also providing the best results for people with high blood pressure. For these reasons, (C) is out.

I hope that helps!

SwethaReddyL · Answer

hi  GMATNinja  /  KarishmaB  - could you please explain how is B right. I can see why A is wrong but imo B doesn't break the sample space - they are just saying that, 
' The participants in the study were selected in part on the basis of their willingness to use meditation techniques.' maybe the sample size is same. why is this a strong weakener.

Thanks in advance,
Swetha

DmitryFarberMPrep · Answer

Sample size is not the problem. It's always problematic to use a sample that may not be representative of the overall population. If these people were pro-meditation, then it's not surprising that they were good at sticking with the meditation plan. But if the meditation option were offered to patients across the country, maybe they wouldn't be as likely to stick to meditation as the people in the study.

In general, any time we're comparing options among sample participants, it's going to be a problem if the sample population has an unusual bias. Imagine asking people if they'd rather study Spanish or Korean. Wouldn't you expect to get unrepresentative results if you sampled only K-pop fans? If it turned out that most of them would rather learn Korean, that wouldn't tell you that a Korean learning product for schools would be more popular than a Spanish learning project. It would just tell you that THIS GROUP had a preference that you could have predicted in the first place. You'd only use that data if you were trying to unfairly skew the outcome.

pikachu9 · Answer

I still don't understand why B is correct

egmat · Answer

pikachu9

Looking at your confusion about choice (B), let me help you understand why it's the correct answer that weakens the argument.

Understanding the Argument First

The argument's logic flow:
 
 Both meditation and drugs work  equally well  IF people stick to them 
 Only 50% of drug patients continue treatment 
 But 80% of meditation users continue after 5 years 
  Therefore:  Meditation produces better results

Why Choice (B) Weakens This Argument

Choice (B) states:  "The participants in the study were selected in part on the basis of their willingness to use meditation techniques."

This introduces  selection bias , which destroys the fair comparison. Here's why:

The Critical Flaw: 
 
 The meditation group was  pre-screened  for people already willing to meditate 
 The drug group presumably wasn't pre-screened for willingness 
 This means we're comparing apples to oranges!

Think of it This Way:

Imagine I want to prove that running is a better exercise than swimming. I conduct a study where:
 
 The running group = people who  already love running  
 The swimming group = randomly selected people

When I find that 80% of runners stick with it vs only 50% of swimmers, is that a fair comparison?  No!  The runners were pre-selected for motivation.

Same Problem Here: 
The 80% meditation adherence rate is  artificially inflated  because they cherry-picked people who were already willing to meditate. In the real world, with random patients, meditation might have the same 50% dropout rate as drugs.

Why Other Choices Don't Weaken: 
 
  (A)  Diet changes - Adds a third option but doesn't address the meditation vs drugs comparison 
  (C)  Works on normal BP - Irrelevant to treating high BP patients 
  (D)  Some were physicians - Doesn't significantly impact the statistical comparison 
  (E)  Unaware patients - Doesn't affect the comparison between the two treatments

Key GMAT Strategy: 
When you see adherence/compliance statistics being compared, always ask:  "Were the groups selected the same way?"  Selection bias is a  classic GMAT weakener  for statistical arguments.

The Takeaway: 
Choice (B) weakens by showing the comparison is  unfair from the start  - the meditation group was stacked with motivated people, making their 80% adherence rate meaningless for drawing conclusions about the general population.

You can practice similar critical reasoning questions  here  - focus on argument weakener problems to build pattern recognition.  This webinar  covers systematic approaches to identify argument flaws like selection bias if you need more foundation work.

KarishmaB · Answer

It is the answer because it gives us a sampling bias.

Based on the observation that 80% of the sample continued meditation for long term but only 50% people continue taking drugs, the study suggested selecting meditation as the course of treatment for general public. 
But if the people in the study were the ones who were willing to meditate then our sample is biased - it doesn't represent general public. What if out of general public only 20% people are willing to meditate and the study picked participants from those? 80% of study participants continued meditation for years, but if meditation treatment is chosen for general public, most of them just wouldn't meditate at all because they may not be willing to meditate. The sample has to be unbiased and representative of the public at large for the study results to make any sense.

Think about it in another scenario: You want to find what people of a country believe about vegan diet. 
- You go to a vegan cafe and 80% people there say that vegan diet is better for health.

Can you claim that 80% people of this country think that vegan diet is better for health? NO! You went to a vegan cafe where the likelihood of this opinion is far higher. Who would come to a vegan cafe? The one who thinks that vegan diet is better.

- Now say you go to a fully non veg cafe instead. There you are likely to find that 100% people believe that meat is necessary/good for health and vegan diet is not enough. But you can't claim that 100% people of this country think that vegan diet is lacking because your study sample is biased again.

This is called sampling bias and option (B) presents it here.

In a fair study, your sample must fairly represent the population.

bhanu29 · Answer

We need to weaken the conclusion.

We see medical vs meditational treatment 
Conclusion:The meditation treatment is the one likely to produce the best results.

What could possibly bring a flaw in the survey conclusion? Usually some sort of selection bias, so keep it in mind and jump to answer choices

(A) People who have high blood pressure are usually advised by their physicians to make changes in diet that have been found in many cases to reduce the severity of the condition.
Irrelevant, advise of physicans doesn't really impact the conclusion.

(B) The participants in the study were selected in part on the basis of their willingness to use meditation techniques.
This seems like the answer, if participants were biased towards meditation sure it will produce better results. Keep.

(C) Meditation techniques can reduce the blood pressure of people who do not suffer from high blood pressure.
Irrelevant to conclusion.

(D) Some of the participants in the study whose high blood pressure was controlled through meditation techniques were physicians.
This also seems plausible, but it would have made sense if medicine was more successful, eliminate.

(E) Many people with dangerously high blood pressure are unaware of their condition.
Irrelevant.

B  Correct Answer

A study of high blood pressure treatments found that certain meditatio

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

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

A study of high blood pressure treatments found that certain meditatio

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