When a study of aspirin’s ability to prevent heart attacks

This topic has expert replies
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 292
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 8:39 am
Thanked: 6 times
Followed by:1 members
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

[spoiler]OA - E; How can we drop B (when the test is inconclusive, how can we say with certainity that heart attachs could hv been prevented. Does it not also weaken the agrument, though, to a lesser degree than E.[/spoiler]
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 216
Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2008 2:35 am
Location: Pune, India
Thanked: 5 times
GMAT Score:700

by ayushiiitm » Wed Jun 23, 2010 8:01 pm
dissection of this CR

conclusion is that >>>Had the results been published sooner, many of the heart attacks that occurred during the delay could have been prevented.


we never talked about the authenticity of the tests. Authenticity is not a problem for us. So B is ruled out
You can say it is out of scope.
Success is a journey.....enjoy every moment of it

Legendary Member
Posts: 537
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 10:06 pm
Thanked: 14 times
Followed by:1 members

by frank1 » Wed Jun 23, 2010 8:29 pm
well when i read D i said bingo...
BUT as always...
time in option E ,2 years and Time which was not necessary (6 months) raised a red flag...
their must be something....
is it red hearring....
in this case doesnt seem to be

so E was my choice...
GMAT score is equally counted as your GPA and 78 clicks can change you life.

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1460
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 1:28 am
Thanked: 135 times
Followed by:7 members

by selango » Wed Jun 23, 2010 9:12 pm
the conclusion deals with delay during which heart attacks on humans can be prevented.

Option B deals with lab animals not humans.Also whether aspirin effective or not is out of scope.

Option E alone tell us that time is not a factor as aspirin must be taken for long period in order to prevent heart attack.

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 71
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 11:02 pm
Thanked: 2 times
GMAT Score:730

by gtvisa2002 » Tue Jun 29, 2010 7:50 am
pnk wrote:How can we drop B (when the test is inconclusive, how can we say with certainity that heart attachs could hv been prevented. Does it not also weaken the agrument, though, to a lesser degree than E
If look at the statement When a study of aspirin's ability to prevent heart attacks in humans yielded positive results , we can assume that the study is good enough to believe that it is consclusive...... However B tries to refute this statement so we can safely avoid this, based on the point that whatever provided in the argument is always true...

HTH