A study of 86 patients, all of whom suffered from disease T and receiv

Question

A study of 86 patients, all of whom suffered from disease T and received the same standard medical treatment, divided the patients into 2 equal groups. One group’s members all attended weekly support group meetings, but no one from the other group attended support group meetings. After 10 years, 41 patients from each group had died. Clearly, support group meetings do not help patients with disease T live longer.

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

(A) Of the 4 patients who survived more than 10 years, the 2 who had attended weekly support group meetings lived longer than the 2 who had not.

(B) For many diseases, attending weekly support group meetings is part of the standard medical treatment.

(C) The members of the group that attended weekly support group meetings lived 2 years longer, on average, than the members of the other group.

(D) Some physicians have argued that attending weekly support group meetings gives patients less faith in the standard treatment for disease T.

(E) Everyone in the group whose members attended weekly support group meetings reported after 1 year that those meetings had helped them to cope with the disease.

Bunuel · Accepted Answer

EXPLANATION FROM Fox LSAT

This is an interesting question, because it contains two separate flaws. The first is the very common flaw of assuming that two groups in a study were randomly selected when it is possible that they were not. This issue appears  all the time  on the LSAT. Here, we know that there were two equal groups. But couldn’t the doctors have given the group with worse initial conditions the support group treatment in addition to the standard medical treatment? If this is true, then the “study” really isn’t a scientific experiment and it would be very hard to reach any conclusion from the study’s results. We’re asked to find a weakener, so something like, “The patients who got the support group treatment had much worse initial diagnoses,” would be a good answer.

The second flaw this argument makes is that it assumes that ten years is the only relevant timeframe for assessing the success of a certain treatment. But that’s silly, when you consider a couple hypothetical alternatives. What if the study had said, “One hundred years later, all the members of both groups were dead, therefore there is no difference in the two treatments”? Or what if the study had said, “Ten minutes later, all the members of both groups were still alive, therefore there is no difference in the two treatments”? If the study had done either of those, then it would be obviously stupid. Imagine if the disease in question was some sort of super-nasty terminal cancer. What if the folks that got the support group treatment lived for nine years, and the folks that didn’t get the support group treatment lived nine weeks? Would it make sense to say, “Ten years later they were all pretty much dead, therefore the support group treatment had no effect”? Of course not. We’re asked to find a weakener, so something like, “The group that got the support group treatment lived much longer, on average, than the other group,” would be a good answer.

We’ve predicted not one, but two good answers. Let’s see if we can find one of them (or something similar) in the answer choices.

A) Nah. The four remaining patients is a terribly small sample. I don’t think this would be a devastating weakener, even if it were true.

B) Totally irrelevant. For disease T, one group got the support group and the other group did not. Who cares whether support group treatment is “standard” for other diseases.

C) This is very much like our second prediction, above. I love it. Note that it’s much better than A, because it’s about a much bigger sample of people.

D) Who cares what “some physicians” think. This is very weak, and we already found a strong answer in C.

E) “Coping” is nice, but it’s not relevant here. The only thing that is relevant to the conclusion of the argument that was actually made is  living longer .

Answer C, if true, shows that the support group does help patients to live longer. So C is our answer.

sivatx2 · Answer

To undermine the argument, the strongest evidence would be that patients who attended weekly meetings lived longer than patients who did not. Though the number of patients died counted to be 41 at the end of 10 year, it could be that the patients who did not attend the meetings could have died earlier in the 10 year period than those patients who attended the meetings.

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

(A) Of the 4 patients who survived more than 10 years, the 2 who had attended weekly support group meetings lived longer than the 2 who had not. 
 This is not making a strong case and also it is outside the scope of the 10 year period in question. Eliminate

(B) For many diseases, attending weekly support group meetings is part of the standard medical treatment. 
 We don't care if the process is standard, and this evidence is irrelevant to the argument. Eliminate

(C) The members of the group that attended weekly support group meetings lived 2 years longer, on average, than the members of the other group. 
 This clearly undermines and inline with our analysis that the group which had meetings had lived longer than the other. Keep

(D) Some physicians have argued that attending weekly support group meetings gives patients less faith in the standard treatment for disease T. 
 Opinion of some physicians or faith in treatment is irrelevant to the argument presented. Eliminate

(E) Everyone in the group whose members attended weekly support group meetings reported after 1 year that those meetings had helped them to cope with the disease. 
 This is a distraction, it brings out a benefit which is irrelevant to the argument. Eliminate

So, C is the best answer choice .

unraveled · Answer

A study of 86 patients, all of whom suffered from disease T and received the same standard medical treatment, divided the patients into 2 equal groups. One group’s members all attended weekly support group meetings, but no one from the other group attended support group meetings. After 10 years, 41 patients from each group had died. Clearly, support group meetings do not help patients with disease T live longer.

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

(A)  Of the 4 patients who survived more than 10 years , the 2 who had attended weekly support group meetings lived longer than the 2 who had not. - WRONG. Looks good initially but the passage scope is limited to the 41 who died from each group. The remaining may or may not impact the conclusion based on the sample size.

(B)  For many diseases , attending weekly support group meetings is part of the standard medical treatment. - WRONG. Other diseases are beyond scope.

(C) The members of the group that attended weekly support group meetings lived 2 years longer, on average, than the members of the other group. - CORRECT. Baseline assumption for this to make a significant impact is that these 86 patients were of same age. If so, then meetings helped those who attended live longer on an average.

(D)  Some physicians  have argued that attending weekly support group meetings gives patients  less faith  in the standard treatment for disease T. - WRONG. Both red text go against this choice to be right one.

(E) Everyone in the group whose members attended weekly support group meetings reported  after 1 year  that those meetings had helped them to cope with the disease. - WRONG. Looks good initially as A did. But period after 1 year shifts the scope of the conclusion thus diluting the impact that this choice may have on the conclusion.

Answer C.

VerbalBot · Answer

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.

A study of 86 patients, all of whom suffered from disease T and receiv

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 study of 86 patients, all of whom suffered from disease T and receiv

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