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.
5-Day Free Trial
5-day free, full-access trial TTP
Available with Beat the GMAT members only code
MORE DETAILS
Meditation for high blood pressure
This topic has expert replies
-
Patrick_GMATFix
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 1052
- Joined: Fri May 21, 2010 1:30 am
- Thanked: 335 times
- Followed by:98 members
There are 3 basic ways to weaken an argument:
(1) negate its assumptions: eg. here the author compares the % of people who take medication regularly to the % of study participants who stick to meditation. The argument assumes that what happens in the study is a reflection of what happens in the wild. Any answer that breaks this assumption will weaken the argument.
(2) introduce new counter evidence: eg. any evidence that meditation has only a short-term effect (doesn't work after a while) while medication keeps working would damage the conclusion. Evidence that meditation only works on a small subset of the population would also do damage.
(3) introduce alternative conclusion supported by the premises: nothing comes to mind right away.
The full solution below is taken from the GMATFix App.
-Patrick
(1) negate its assumptions: eg. here the author compares the % of people who take medication regularly to the % of study participants who stick to meditation. The argument assumes that what happens in the study is a reflection of what happens in the wild. Any answer that breaks this assumption will weaken the argument.
(2) introduce new counter evidence: eg. any evidence that meditation has only a short-term effect (doesn't work after a while) while medication keeps working would damage the conclusion. Evidence that meditation only works on a small subset of the population would also do damage.
(3) introduce alternative conclusion supported by the premises: nothing comes to mind right away.
The full solution below is taken from the GMATFix App.
-Patrick
- Check out my site: GMATFix.com
- To prep my students I use this tool >> (screenshots, video)
- Ask me about tutoring.
-
VivianKerr
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 1035
- Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2010 11:13 am
- Location: Los Angeles, CA
- Thanked: 474 times
- Followed by:365 members
Step 1 - Identify the Question-type
This is a Weaken question, so the correct answer is probably going to either invalidate the Evidence upon which the conclusion is based, reverse the Assumption, or offer an alternate explanation. That means we have to understand the Conclusion, Evidence, and Assumption in a very concrete way in order to brainstorm an answer.
Step 2 - Break down the Argument
Conclusion: Meditation = best results
Evidence: M and D equally effective long term, 50% stop D, 80% continue M
Notice the concept shift between the percent of people who stop/continue D&M, and the "best results" claim in the conclusion.
The author is tying the drop-off rate TO the results.
Assumption: Length of time matters for treatments
Step 3 - Answer the Question on your own
So, what would weaken that?
Anything that shows length of time is IRRELEVANT, or that people are no longer taking the drugs because they fix the problem, etc.
Step 4 - Analyze choices. Choose the on that DECIMATES the Conclusion.
A) This doesn't necessarily show that M isn't better - ELIMINATE
B) Potentially invalidates evidence - KEEP
C) Totally irrelevant - ELIMINATE
D) Totally irrelevant - ELIMINATE
E) Totally irrelevant - ELIMINATE
The answer must be B. It invalidates the Evidence. The author is saying M is better because people stick with it longer over D, but if people are only sticking with it because they have a built-in interest in M, then it may not necessarily produce "the best results." Basically: they're practicing M, because they WANT to, not for any extra healthly bonus.
This is a Weaken question, so the correct answer is probably going to either invalidate the Evidence upon which the conclusion is based, reverse the Assumption, or offer an alternate explanation. That means we have to understand the Conclusion, Evidence, and Assumption in a very concrete way in order to brainstorm an answer.
Step 2 - Break down the Argument
Conclusion: Meditation = best results
Evidence: M and D equally effective long term, 50% stop D, 80% continue M
Notice the concept shift between the percent of people who stop/continue D&M, and the "best results" claim in the conclusion.
The author is tying the drop-off rate TO the results.
Assumption: Length of time matters for treatments
Step 3 - Answer the Question on your own
So, what would weaken that?
Anything that shows length of time is IRRELEVANT, or that people are no longer taking the drugs because they fix the problem, etc.
Step 4 - Analyze choices. Choose the on that DECIMATES the Conclusion.
A) This doesn't necessarily show that M isn't better - ELIMINATE
B) Potentially invalidates evidence - KEEP
C) Totally irrelevant - ELIMINATE
D) Totally irrelevant - ELIMINATE
E) Totally irrelevant - ELIMINATE
The answer must be B. It invalidates the Evidence. The author is saying M is better because people stick with it longer over D, but if people are only sticking with it because they have a built-in interest in M, then it may not necessarily produce "the best results." Basically: they're practicing M, because they WANT to, not for any extra healthly bonus.
Vivian Kerr
GMAT Rockstar, Tutor
https://www.GMATrockstar.com
https://www.yelp.com/biz/gmat-rockstar-los-angeles
Former Kaplan and Grockit instructor, freelance GMAT content creator, now offering affordable, effective, Skype-tutoring for the GMAT at $150/hr. Contact: [email protected]
Thank you for all the "thanks" and "follows"!
GMAT Rockstar, Tutor
https://www.GMATrockstar.com
https://www.yelp.com/biz/gmat-rockstar-los-angeles
Former Kaplan and Grockit instructor, freelance GMAT content creator, now offering affordable, effective, Skype-tutoring for the GMAT at $150/hr. Contact: [email protected]
Thank you for all the "thanks" and "follows"!
-
Abhishek009
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 359
- Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 4:37 am
- Location: Kolkata, India
- Thanked: 50 times
- Followed by:2 members
High Blood Pressure treatment found that both drugs and medicines are equally effective if used over long term.GmatGreen wrote: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.
Half of the patients stop drugs after 5 years , whereas those taught medication continue doing so regularly.
Hence medication is the the only treatment for treating High Blood Pressure.
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.
Out of scope.
(B) The participants in the study were selected in part on the basis of their willingness to use meditation techniques.
If this is true then the survey will lead to a biased opinion , and if this is assumed to be true then the whole conclusion shatters like a pack of cards..
(C) Meditation techniques can reduce the blood pressure of people who do not suffer from high blood pressure.
out of scope.
(D) Some of the participants in the study whose high blood pressure was controlled through meditation techniques were physicians.
Out of scope.
(E) Many people with dangerously high blood pressure are unaware of their condition.
Out of scope.3
Hence IMO(B)
Abhishek
-
saranshpuri
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 46
- Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2011 6:32 am
- Thanked: 1 times
I really have a doubt related to B.
As far as my understanding of the Argument is concerned
A Study was conducted and it was found that meditation technique and most commonly prescribed drugs are equally effective if continues over longer term.
50% percent continues taking drug regularly.
80% continues with mediation technique regularly.
Conclusion : Mediation Treatment is the one likely to produce results.
So Utimately what matters is the result of Study , which is supported by facts mentioned in the argument. Any statement which could affect the result will weaken the Conclusion.
I dont think B Weakens the Conclusion as B only suggests that people are more willing to continue medication. However, it wont affect the Result of the Study.
As far as my understanding of the Argument is concerned
A Study was conducted and it was found that meditation technique and most commonly prescribed drugs are equally effective if continues over longer term.
50% percent continues taking drug regularly.
80% continues with mediation technique regularly.
Conclusion : Mediation Treatment is the one likely to produce results.
So Utimately what matters is the result of Study , which is supported by facts mentioned in the argument. Any statement which could affect the result will weaken the Conclusion.
I dont think B Weakens the Conclusion as B only suggests that people are more willing to continue medication. However, it wont affect the Result of the Study.
-
saranshpuri
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 46
- Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2011 6:32 am
- Thanked: 1 times
I really have a doubt related to B.
As far as my understanding of the Argument is concerned
A Study was conducted and it was found that meditation technique and most commonly prescribed drugs are equally effective if continues over longer term.
50% percent continues taking drug regularly.
80% continues with mediation technique regularly.
Conclusion : Mediation Treatment is the one likely to produce results.
So Utimately what matters is the result of Study , which is supported by facts mentioned in the argument. Any statement which could affect the result will weaken the Conclusion.
I dont think B Weakens the Conclusion as B only suggests that people are more willing to continue medication. However, it wont affect the Result of the Study.
As far as my understanding of the Argument is concerned
A Study was conducted and it was found that meditation technique and most commonly prescribed drugs are equally effective if continues over longer term.
50% percent continues taking drug regularly.
80% continues with mediation technique regularly.
Conclusion : Mediation Treatment is the one likely to produce results.
So Utimately what matters is the result of Study , which is supported by facts mentioned in the argument. Any statement which could affect the result will weaken the Conclusion.
I dont think B Weakens the Conclusion as B only suggests that people are more willing to continue medication. However, it wont affect the Result of the Study.
