Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Apr 2610:00 AM EDT
-11:00 AM EDT
The Target Test Prep course represents a quantum leap forward in GMAT preparation, a radical reinterpretation of the way that students should study. Try before you buy with a 5-day, full-access trial of the course for FREE!
Apr 2711:00 AM EDT
-12:00 PM EDT
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors
Apr 2808:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
04 Oct 2017, 02:21
Kudos
Bookmarks
E
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
15%
(low)
Question Stats:
79% (01:17) correct
21%
(01:16)
wrong
based on 565
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
When a study of aspirin’s ability to prevent heart attacks in humans yielded positive results, researchers immediately submitted those results to a medical journal, which published them six weeks later. Had the results been published sooner, many of the heart attacks that occurred during the delay could have been prevented.
The conclusion drawn above would be most undermined if it were true that
(A) the medical journal’s staff worked overtime in order to publish the study’s results as soon as possible
(B) studies of aspirin’s usefulness in reducing heart attacks in laboratory animals remain inconclusive
(C) people who take aspirin regularly suffer a higher-than-average incidence of stomach ulcers
(D) the medical journal’s official policy is to publish articles only after an extensive review process
(E) a person’s risk of suffering a heart attack drops only after that person has taken aspirin regularly for two years
Source: LSAT
The conclusion drawn above would be most undermined if it were true that
(A) the medical journal’s staff worked overtime in order to publish the study’s results as soon as possible
(B) studies of aspirin’s usefulness in reducing heart attacks in laboratory animals remain inconclusive
(C) people who take aspirin regularly suffer a higher-than-average incidence of stomach ulcers
(D) the medical journal’s official policy is to publish articles only after an extensive review process
(E) a person’s risk of suffering a heart attack drops only after that person has taken aspirin regularly for two years
Source: LSAT
03 Apr 2021, 01:15
Kudos
Bookmarks
broall
OFFICIAL EXPLANATION
(A) No. Regardless of the reason, the delay still occurred and the argument’s validity remains unaffected.
(B) No. This is irrelevant. The passage states that aspirin is effective in tests with humans.
(C) No. The conclusion does not state that the general health of people who take aspirin would be better, just that their risk of heart attack would be lessened.
(D) No. Regardless of the reason, the delay still occurred and the argument’s validity remains unaffected.
(E) Yes. If aspirin must be taken regularly for two years before any benefits are realized, then taking aspirin during the six-week delay would have had no affect on reducing the risk of heart attacks during the delay.
General Discussion
sandysilva
GMAT 1: 650 Q42 V37
Posts: 190
05 Oct 2017, 09:45
Kudos
Bookmarks
When a study of aspirin’s ability to prevent heart attacks in humans yielded positive results, researchers immediately submitted those results to a medical journal, which published them six weeks later. Had the results been published sooner, many of the heart attacks that occurred during the delay could have been prevented.
The conclusion drawn above would be most undermined if it were true that
(A) the medical journal’s staff worked overtime in order to publish the study’s results as soon as possible
Irrelevant.
(B) studies of aspirin’s usefulness in reducing heart attacks in laboratory animals remain inconclusive
The argument is about humans, so any info. about animals is irrelevant.
(C) people who take aspirin regularly suffer a higher-than-average incidence of stomach ulcers
Yes, this statement highlights a disadvantage of using aspirin. However, it does not weaken our conclusion that says many heart attacks could have been prevented.
(D) the medical journal’s official policy is to publish articles only after an extensive review process
This is an attractive choice(at least to me). However, it does not help us achieve our goal to weaken the conclusion. It justifies the time taken by medical journal. But the conclusion still stands that yes okay even if time of 6 weeks is justified had the results published sooner, heart attacks could have been prevented.
(E) a person’s risk of suffering a heart attack drops only after that person has taken aspirin regularly for two years
This choice if true weakens the conclusion. It says even if what asked was done, heart attacks would not be prevented.
Regards
SandySilva
The conclusion drawn above would be most undermined if it were true that
(A) the medical journal’s staff worked overtime in order to publish the study’s results as soon as possible
Irrelevant.
(B) studies of aspirin’s usefulness in reducing heart attacks in laboratory animals remain inconclusive
The argument is about humans, so any info. about animals is irrelevant.
(C) people who take aspirin regularly suffer a higher-than-average incidence of stomach ulcers
Yes, this statement highlights a disadvantage of using aspirin. However, it does not weaken our conclusion that says many heart attacks could have been prevented.
(D) the medical journal’s official policy is to publish articles only after an extensive review process
This is an attractive choice(at least to me). However, it does not help us achieve our goal to weaken the conclusion. It justifies the time taken by medical journal. But the conclusion still stands that yes okay even if time of 6 weeks is justified had the results published sooner, heart attacks could have been prevented.
(E) a person’s risk of suffering a heart attack drops only after that person has taken aspirin regularly for two years
This choice if true weakens the conclusion. It says even if what asked was done, heart attacks would not be prevented.
Regards
SandySilva
