BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

Gmat prep CR - sucking zinc lozenges

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 79
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 11:16 pm

Gmat prep CR - sucking zinc lozenges

by hk_4u » Sat Dec 19, 2009 12:29 pm
Though sucking zinc lozenges has been promoted as a treatment for the common cold, research has revealed no consistent effect. Recently, however, a zinc gel applied nasally has been shown to greatly reduce the duration of colds. Since the gel contains zinc in the same form and concentration as the lozenges, the greater effectiveness of the gel must be due to the fact that cold viruses tend to concentrate in the nose, not the mouth.


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

A Experimental subjects who used the zinc gel not only had colds of shorter duration but also had less severe symtoms than did those who used a gel that did not contain zinc.

B The mechanism by which zinc affects the viruses that cause the common cold has not been conclusively established.

C To make them palatable, zinc lozenges generally contain other ingredients, such as citric acid, that can interfere with the chemical activity of zinc.

D No zinc-based cold remedy can have any effect unless it is taken or applied within 48 hours of the initial onset of cold symptoms.

E Drug-company researchers experimenting with a nasal spray based on zinc have found that it has much the same effect on colds as the gel does.

OA - C

I am totally clueless about this problem. Please share your views.
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
Legendary Member
Posts: 1578
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2008 1:49 am
Thanked: 82 times
Followed by:9 members
GMAT Score:720

by maihuna » Sat Dec 19, 2009 1:23 pm
hk_4u wrote:Though sucking zinc lozenges has been promoted as a treatment for the common cold, research has revealed no consistent effect. Recently, however, a zinc gel applied nasally has been shown to greatly reduce the duration of colds. Since the gel contains zinc in the same form and concentration as the lozenges, the greater effectiveness of the gel must be due to the fact that cold viruses tend to concentrate in the nose, not the mouth.


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

A Experimental subjects who used the zinc gel not only had colds of shorter duration but also had less severe symtoms than did those who used a gel that did not contain zinc.

B The mechanism by which zinc affects the viruses that cause the common cold has not been conclusively established.

C To make them palatable, zinc lozenges generally contain other ingredients, such as citric acid, that can interfere with the chemical activity of zinc.

D No zinc-based cold remedy can have any effect unless it is taken or applied within 48 hours of the initial onset of cold symptoms.

E Drug-company researchers experimenting with a nasal spray based on zinc have found that it has much the same effect on colds as the gel does.

OA - C

I am totally clueless about this problem. Please share your views.
You have just seen a Q that is being debated since ages. If your source of GmatPrep is correct please post the same, You might force the great Stuart to take his word back, here is what he said quite some time back:
======================================================
I'm not loving any of the answer choices and am confident that this question as written would not show up on an Official GMAT. However, if I were forced to answer, I would choose D. The conclusion of the arg is that the greater effectiveness of the gel must be due to the fact that cold viruses tend to concentrate in the nose, not the mouth. To evaluate this conclusion, we must assess additional information over whether this is truly why the gel is more effective. Choices A and C are outside the scope of the argument, and answer choice E is an incorrect "attractive distractor," as the argument discusses the duration of colds but never mentions the severity of cold symptoms. Finally, choice B can be eliminated as it does not shed any insight on the relationship between the zinc lozenges and the zinc gel.

Choice D, the "best" answer (best of the bad!), evaluates whether some inherent difference between the lozenges and the gel could influence how effective each one is. This would provide addition insight into whether a factor other than the location of where each product is applied is responsible for the difference in effectiveness between the two products.
=======================================================
Charged up again to beat the beast :)
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 1578
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2008 1:49 am
Thanked: 82 times
Followed by:9 members
GMAT Score:720

by maihuna » Sat Dec 19, 2009 1:31 pm
Ok let me quickly note one thing: the explanations recorded above is for a tiny variation in gmatprep version posted by you:

Here is that Question:
=================
Though sucking zinc lozenges has been promoted as a treatment for the common cold, research has revealed no consistent effect. Recently, however, a zinc gel applied nasally has been shown to greatly reduce the duration of colds. Since the gel contains zinc in the same form and concentration as the lozenges, the greater effectiveness of the gel must be due to the fact that cold viruses tend to concentrate in the nose, not the mouth.
In order to evaluate the argument, it would be most helpful to determine which of the
following?
A. Whether zinc is effective only against colds, or also has an effect on other virally
caused diseases
B. Whether there are remedies that do not contain zinc but that, when taken orally,
can reduce the duration of colds
C. Whether people who frequently catch colds have a zinc deficiency
D. Whether either the zinc gel or the lozenges contain ingredients that have an
impact on the activity of the zinc
E. Whether the zinc gel has an effect on the severity of cold symptoms, as well as on
their duration
======================

Answer to your Q is C due to obvious reason. There are other elements that make the nozzle one more effective precisely covered in C. so C is fine for your one. D is fine for this version as pointed by Stuart. Only point of interest : such questions do appear in official gmat, as the variations are not that subtle, they are genuine no linguistic issues.
Charged up again to beat the beast :)
Top
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 1302
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 2:13 pm
Location: Toronto
Thanked: 539 times
Followed by:164 members
GMAT Score:800

by Testluv » Sat Dec 19, 2009 1:50 pm
I would go for choice C here--on the original poster's question that is, not the new one that Maihuna posted. To me, this looks like yet another explain the phenomenon argument.

What is the phenomenon? That in one mode of administration (lozenges), zinc produces no consistent beneficial effect while in anohter mode of administration (gel), it does.

What is the explanation? That something about the cold virus (its congregation in the nose) makes gel more effective than lozenges.

What is the author assuming? That there are no other explanations for this phenomenon. (in all "explain the phenomenon" arguments, this is the central assumption).

How do we weaken? The way we weaken is by finding an answer choice that attacks the assumption. How do we attack the assumption that "there are no other explanations"? Simple: by finding an answer choice that suggests there is an alternative explanation. Here, we would be looking for something that suggests that something else (something besides the cold virus' congregation in the nose) explains why zinc gels are more effective than zinc lozenges. Because choice C tells us that zinc lozenges generally contain other ingredients, it could be that the difference in consistent beneficial effect between the modes of administration (lozenge vs gel) is due to the fact that the gel contains these other ingredients. And, it doesn't matter that these other ingredients interfere with zinc: the gels might be more effective because of the other ingredients such as citric acid; that is, the zinc gels' greater effectiveness might not have anything to do with zinc at all. In that case, choice C clearly weakens the argument.
Kaplan Teacher in Toronto
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 79
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 11:16 pm

by hk_4u » Sun Dec 20, 2009 10:59 am
Here you go . It's an official GmatPrep problem - weaken the conclusion


Image
[/img]
Top
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 1302
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 2:13 pm
Location: Toronto
Thanked: 539 times
Followed by:164 members
GMAT Score:800

by Testluv » Sun Dec 20, 2009 11:10 am
hk_4u wrote:Here you go . It's an official GmatPrep problem - weaken the conclusion


Image
[/img]
Yeah, for sure, and the correct answer is choice C as per my post above!
Kaplan Teacher in Toronto
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 79
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 11:16 pm

by hk_4u » Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:39 am
Hi

Thanks for the wonderful explanation. It helps me to realize that why C is the correct answer.
Although I am convinced with your explanation, I am not sure how will I tackle a similar Q in the future.

Reasons for my concern are

1 - I was no where near the correct answer
2 - After reading the conclusion, I had paraphrased in my mind what the correct answer would be. I was thinking in terms of a new theory related to gels - my version of correct answer was a statement that would have said that some other theory is responsible for the greater effectiveness of the gel. It never crossed my mind that I need to compare the effectiveness of the 2 forms of Zinc mentioned in the arg. I was only thinking about the greater effectiveness of the gel.

How does one should approach such problems?
Top
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 1302
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 2:13 pm
Location: Toronto
Thanked: 539 times
Followed by:164 members
GMAT Score:800

by Testluv » Thu Dec 31, 2009 6:09 pm
Hi hk_4u

For some questions, you should have very specific prephrases. These are usually questions that don't depend on your referencing the answer choices in order to answer correctly. The test-maker could have asked these questions outside of a multiple choice context in a "write your own answer" test format. For example, virtually all assumption and many inference questions fall into this category. In RC, global, detail and logic function questions fall into this category. (If we want, we can call these "short-answer" questions or "not really multiple choice" questions.)

Then, there are some questions that are intrinsically multiple choice because it is necessary to reference the answer choices in order to answer them correctly. (If we want, we can call these questions "true multiple choice" questions). In CR, strengthen and weaken questions are like this. Therefore, in stn/wkn, instead of being committed to a very specific prephrase, we need to be more general and flexible in our prediction; we predict the behaviour of the correct answer.

For example, if we predict that the weakener should point to an alternative explanation, then, typically, we don't have in mind a specific alternative explanation. Instead, we understand what phenomenon the author was trying to give an accounting of, and we look at an answer choice and ask: "could this fact open up the possibility of an alternative explanation?" (The answer choices to stn/wkn questions are always facts).

I think you may have over-committed to a specific prephrase in this stn/wkn question, and that's probably the reason why you were "nowhere near the correct answer". I'm not saying "a new theory related to gels" was a bad prediction; had the answer choices been easier, you may well have found a match. But when you realized that no answer choice was matching your specific prephrase, instead of forcing an answer choice to do so, you needed to take a step back, reconsider what the author was trying to get at and why, and then ask whether any of the facts could have a bearing on that argument.

Sometimes (I would venture to say, most of the time), the correct answer to a stn/wkn question will be a fact that has an immediate connection to the argument, and so it is clear that it is a strengthener or a weakener. Other times (such as here), the connection may be more remote (perhaps two or three links away); but that doesn't necessarily mean that there isn't a connection.
Kaplan Teacher in Toronto
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 79
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 11:16 pm

by hk_4u » Sat Jan 02, 2010 10:01 am
For example, virtually all assumption and many inference questions fall into this category.
Not sure how true is this ? I feel all the tough assumption Questions and inference questions( specially in RC) require you to evaluate each answer choice, since there can be more than one assumption/inference true for an argument.

Your reply relates to another query of mine.

I commit 2 types of mistakes in CR :

1 - when I am between 2 answer choices and I miss the correct one. On analysis, I realize that I have fallen in a trap,something I work upon and improve. I memorize the kind of mistake I have made and try not to repeat it again.

2 - when I am nowhere near the answer (like the one in discussion).On analysis, I realize that the correct choice has a logical and convincing reason to it.And, the reason I missed it is
1 - I was committed to a paraphrase answer
2 - I thought that this reasoning is just going too far off and is out of scope.

Examples of such questions are
1 - this question under discussion
2 - https://www.beatthegmat.com/gmat-prep-cr ... 49706.html
Here the discussion of new medicine is fine and acceptable to me.However I am not sure what to really learn from such
questions and how will I handle such questions in future.
3 - https://www.beatthegmat.com/morganville- ... 29956.html
I cannot think the correct answer to this problem ever

Your words
Sometimes (I would venture to say, most of the time), the correct answer to a stn/wkn question will be a fact that has an immediate connection to the argument, and so it is clear that it is a strengthener or a weakener. Other times (such as here), the connection may be more remote (perhaps two or three links away); but that doesn't necessarily mean that there isn't a connection.
are helpful indeed.But still, how to really improve on such tough questions where you are required to "think" a little more than what you do normally for other questions.

Phew ...if you don't get what I am asking, don't fret. Even I feel confused after writing it :)

To summarize, To get such tough questions correct,I need to learn how to identify "remote connections" without going out of the scope of the argument.Question is HOW ?
Top
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 1302
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 2:13 pm
Location: Toronto
Thanked: 539 times
Followed by:164 members
GMAT Score:800

by Testluv » Sat Jan 02, 2010 5:00 pm
Not sure how true is this ? I feel all the tough assumption Questions and inference questions( specially in RC) require you to evaluate each answer choice, since there can be more than one assumption/inference true for an argument.
That's true but most assumption questions are written by the test-maker so that there is one big glaring assumption. And most inference questions are designed so that you could put two together with another two, and figure out four--that is you can make a deduction. In an inference question, if you can't make a deduction, measure the choices against the stimulus asking which choice must be true. As for RC, it usually is true that you need to look at all the choices--but you never go into them blind--you always have some knowledge of what the right answer should be about in general terms. For example, if the question is: "Which of the following are the economists discussed in paragraph two most likely to agree with?", then of course you refresh your knowledge of the economists' position before evaluating the answer choices.
1 - when I am between 2 answer choices and I miss the correct one. On analysis, I realize that I have fallen in a trap,something I work upon and improve. I memorize the kind of mistake I have made and try not to repeat it again.
Most test-takers narrow it down to two choices. Don't overuse POE. If you think B might be right but you are worried about D, don't switch to D, unless you have a very good reason for thinking that D is right--don't let your worry about choice D get the better of you. Remember the test-taker is an expert at designing seductive wrong answers. Quite often it is HARDER to figure out why D is wrong than it is to see why B is right. (When I train students, many of them in this situatoin switch to D. Then, I ask them: "why did you think D was right?" and they respond "well, I didn't. I thought B was right but I couldn't figure out why D was wrong." My response: "why do you care about why D is wrong? You don't get a point for figuring out why the wrong answers are wrong. If you are reasonably sure B is right but can't quite figure out why D is wrong, then 99% of the time B is right, so select it and move on"). I discussed this in much more detail in one of my earlier CR posts--I'll see if I can find it.

Scope is not really your friend in stn/wkn questions. It is very possible that an answer that seems outside the scope is, nonetheless, a stregnthener/weakener. I didn't say you should predict remote connections. If you look at my post again, I said you need to make a flexible prediction about the behavior of the right answer (in stn/wkn questions). If you don't find a match, then you need to examine answer choices' impact on the argument, keeping the argument itself clear in your head--second-to-last paragraph of my previous post.
Kaplan Teacher in Toronto
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 79
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 11:16 pm

by hk_4u » Mon Jan 04, 2010 6:18 pm
Scope is not really your friend in stn/wkn questions. It is very possible that an answer that seems outside the scope is, nonetheless, a stregnthener/weakener. I didn't say you should predict remote connections. If you look at my post again, I said you need to make a flexible prediction about the behavior of the right answer (in stn/wkn questions). If you don't find a match, then you need to examine answer choices' impact on the argument, keeping the argument itself clear in your head--second-to-last paragraph of my previous post.
Tough but True. The problem as I wrote earlier is to be convinced of the answer choice within a couple of minutes.I guess I need to learn this skill by practice.

Thanks for your valuable inputs
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 132
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2010 2:49 am
Thanked: 5 times

by RadiumBall » Sat Mar 05, 2011 10:52 pm
I do not agree. Here is why,
Argument:
1) Sucking lozenges not effective against cold.
2) Gel is effective because cold virus tend to concentrate in the nose, not the mouth.

We need to weaken so we need to prove that either gel is not effective or lozenges is effective.

C says that lozenges is not effective repeating what has already been said effectively strengthening the argument. So how is C the answer?
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 132
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2010 2:49 am
Thanked: 5 times

by RadiumBall » Wed Mar 23, 2011 8:47 pm
Can anyone kindly clarify my doubt...
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1255
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 2:08 pm
Location: St. Louis
Thanked: 312 times
Followed by:90 members

by Tani » Thu Mar 24, 2011 9:42 pm
The way I read it the stimulus says the gel works and the lozenges don't, and it must be because the lozenges are used in the mouth, not the nose.

Looking at alternative explanations I say the lozenges don't work because of the other compounds. It is possible that the lozenges would work just as well as the gel if they didn't have the other stuff in them.
Tani Wolff
Top
User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 2193
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 6:30 pm
Location: Vermont and Boston, MA
Thanked: 1186 times
Followed by:512 members
GMAT Score:770

by David@VeritasPrep » Fri Mar 25, 2011 4:37 am
Received a PM:

Radium -

There are many good posts above so I will take another angle. I think this will resolve your doubt.

Let's look at this as a cause and effect type of question.

When you have cause and effect - that is we are trying to explain why something happens - remember this, the thing that happens is not up for debate. It is an observation, it is a fact, it is a premise and it is not debatable.

So the effect in this case is that the zinc gel applied to the nose works and the zonc lozenge does not. This is not debatable. We are trying to explain this. Now you said in your posting that we are trying to show that this is not true. But remember, we cannot debate the event only the explanation for it.

Now the conclusion is the cause and this is debatable. So the argument says that the reason for the effect is that the gel is applied to the nose and not the mouth.

To weaken a cause and effect argument you just about always want an alternate cause. So we are looking for another reason for the gel to be effective. As Tani says above, another possible cause of the gel being more effective is that it does not have the other ingredients that the lozenge has.

So we have another possible cause and that is the way to weaken.
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor

Veritas Prep Reviews
Save $100 off any live Veritas Prep GMAT Course
Top
Post new topic Post Reply