Out of those suffering from manic depression, patients who live at hom

Question

Out of those suffering from manic depression, patients who live at home have more bouts of depression than do patients at mental health care facilities. To test the hypothesis that the stress-free environment of such facilities is the sole reason for their success, some recently-diagnosed patients were relocated to a mental health care facility and others were studied in their home environments, from which stress-causing factors had been eliminated. It was found that both groups had an equal number of depression bouts.

The answer to which of the following questions would contribute the most to understanding the significance of the experiment results in relation to the hypothesis tested?

A. Whether most of the patients observed in the home environments were living with family members.

B. Whether there were some patients in the health care facility who would have preferred to remain in their home environments.

C. Whether the doctors observing patients in their home environments were more accredited than the doctors observing the other group.

D. Whether the dosage of anti-depressive medicine was the same for patients in both the groups studied.

E. Whether the time period of study was sufficient for patients to acclimatize to new surroundings that could otherwise have caused severe anxiety.

Ps1810 · Answer

I was confused between D & E and chose D as I thought that if D were true, then it would have played with the results to some length. Can somebody help out on this part? Thanks in Advance!!

rosalynd · Answer

Oh man, I totally see why you were stuck between D and E. I mean, if the dosage of anti-depressive medicine was different for each group, that could definitely mess with the results. But then again, if the patients didn't have enough time to get used to their new surroundings in the mental health care facility, that could also be a big factor. Personally, I'm leaning more towards E because that seems like a pretty important consideration. But hey, that's just my two cents.

ARG1497 · Answer

Between D and E, IMO E seems more accurate because the experiment wants to test the impact of the environment and if stress free environment can reduce the bouts of depression. E talks about environment which is more in line with the point of focus.

richdoggo · Answer

I think that it is E over D because the question is asking  "in relation to the hypothesis tested" .

E can impact the results, but it is not related to the focus of the study - which is the environment

Aneet · Answer

The amount of AD depends on the degree of illness. Which has not mentioned in the passage, so E is clearer

Posted from my mobile device

HelloDarkness · Answer

Why is B not right, I would think if you relocate people that want to stay at home to mental health hospital they would be likely to be depressed, which would answer why they had an equal number of bouts of depression

Posted from my mobile device

Posted from my mobile device

achatterjee1994 · Answer

It seems like D & E are very closely related to the answer. Is there a specific reason why we should choose E over D?

adi007 · Answer

Let’s take  E . In the ideal scenario, as per the question, patients in mental health care facilities (MHC) would have a higher number of depression bouts. If you remove the stress-causing factors at home, then depression bouts should come down. If acclimatization was the problem, that would instead increase the number of depression bouts, and hence it challenges whether the study truly tested a stress-free environment.
In most GMAT questions, the premise is taken as fact and usually not challenged.
The question asks: “Which would contribute the most to understanding the significance of the experiment results in relation to the hypothesis tested?" This should mean: what do the results (equal number of depression bouts) imply — does this outcome really show that the stress-free environment at home was the factor or not?
Therefore, I don’t think the GMAT would ever test whether acclimatization itself can cause stress. Not an official question though but answer is framed ambiguous That’s why  E  is debatable as the OA.

rm3122 · Answer

Here is what I am thinking-

Hypothesis- the stress-free environment of such facilities is the sole reason for their success

Finding- both groups had an equal number of depression bouts.

Question- What would contribute the most to understanding the significance of the experiment results in relation to the hypothesis tested?
In short- what would help us understand the experiment results better.

Note- Since this is a scientific experiment, all aspects of the experiment should be the same for both the study groups- doctors, treatment protocol, treatment duration, etc. the only variable should be the thing being studied- Environment.

A. Whether most of the patients observed in the home environments were living with family members.
Could be an option if no other options are available, but not really a very strong contributor.

B. Whether there were some patients in the health care facility who would have preferred to remain in their home environments.
Incorrect- Preference of environment is not being tested. Plus even if a patient preferred either of the options, it would be a random assignment.

C. Whether the doctors observing patients in their home environments were more accredited than the doctors observing the other group.
Incorrect- Doctors are not the focus of the experiment, the environment is. And again, in case of a scientific experiment, even the treating physicians will be following a predefined protocol which is established prior to the start of the experiment.

D. Whether the dosage of anti-depressive medicine was the same for patients in both the groups studied.
Incorrect- Drug dosage is not under review. And follow the same logic as in answer B and C.

E. Whether the time period of study was sufficient for patients to acclimatize to new surroundings that could otherwise have caused severe anxiety.
Correct- Answer is looking at the environment, and also will help us determine the significance of the study and is a better choice over A since family members would be more of an external factor than an environmental factor.

To understand option E a bit better, let’s say the study was for 3 months-
Both groups had suffered 30 bouts each. What would help us understand this better?
If the bouts were evenly spaced across both groups- 10 per month, or did it change for one of the group? If the MHC group initially suffered 15 in the first month, 10 in the second and then 5 in the third vs the home group suffering 10 in each month. Or maybe it increased for the MHC group- 5 in the first month, 10 in the second and 15 in the third. All three of these would have different inferences being drawn. So knowing this would help us best understand the result of the experiment.

Adit_ · Answer

EDIT: Great question. Took me a while to understand the crux of what they are asking. Answer is definitely E and when thinking really deep D cannot be an answer at all.

Reason:
Lets see option E first:
So now consider the opposite of option E.
Let the study be short that increases anxiety levels of those in mental health facility.
Now the premise cannot be contested, THUS the people who are in their home environments also had HIGH depression bouts in order to MATCH the depression bouts as per premise.
Is this success? Think about it. The premise says "stress-free environment" is the sole reason for the SUCCESS.
Is mental health facility and the home people equally having high depression bouts a success? NO
The questions asks about contributing to significance of the experiment results so we need an option that HIGHLY strengthens one way or HIGHLY weakens the other way.

If on the other hand if the study were indeed long, the people now have ideally lower depression bouts as per the stem and after acclimatization and thus the home people also have a low depression bout leading to equal depression bout and a SUCCESS!

Lets see option D now:
Dosage differences:
If it were true it will hamper the results YES.
Is the stress factor the only factor now? NO.
Does it weaken this way? YES.
But having an equal dosage does it actually show significance to the validity of the results in this case? NO
It only removes the possibility of a factor involved, it does not help in the SIGNIFICANCE of the argument. It is clearly not strong enough.

Summary is:
Option D:
Negation --> HIGHLY WEAKENS
Affirmative --> Barely strengthens just about gives us reason of removal of a factor.

Option E:
Negation --> HIGHLY WEAKENS
Affirmative --> HIGHLY STRENGTHENS.

Hence  option E  is right.

Would love for any expert's opinions on my line of thinking.
 KarishmaB   GMATNinja

Out of those suffering from manic depression, patients who live at hom

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

Out of those suffering from manic depression, patients who live at hom

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