Mc Graw Hill Test -3 CR2
-
FightWithGMAT
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 364
- Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 5:13 am
- Thanked: 31 times
- Followed by:3 members
-
diebeatsthegmat
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 1119
- Joined: Fri May 07, 2010 8:50 am
- Thanked: 29 times
- Followed by:3 members
i think the answer is C and it does says about gums disease: gums bleeding. flossing makes gums bleeding....but i am not very sure since the passage states that " mouthwash is as good as flossing in preventing gums diseaseadi_800 wrote:I too went for D...
D talks about serious public health problem. C talks about flossing but does not talk about serious health problem...
give it the OA and OE, man!
-
reply2spg
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 1261
- Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2008 3:46 am
- Thanked: 27 times
- GMAT Score:570
This is actually a court room drama, you have to be aggressive on the other party. If you try to prove your point right then there might be chances that court may favor to your opponent.
If you are aggressive then there are more chances of winning. D says that mouthwash company will say that 'advertisement will increase the number of people who take effective action against gum disease, a serious public health problem', mouthwash company launched advertisement to attract people and it knows that number of people get attracted to advertisement will be more. Then where is counter to opponent?
Therefore IMO D is not correct
If you are aggressive then there are more chances of winning. D says that mouthwash company will say that 'advertisement will increase the number of people who take effective action against gum disease, a serious public health problem', mouthwash company launched advertisement to attract people and it knows that number of people get attracted to advertisement will be more. Then where is counter to opponent?
Therefore IMO D is not correct
adi_800 wrote:I too went for D...
D talks about serious public health problem. C talks about flossing but does not talk about serious health problem...
Sudhanshu
(have lot of things to learn from all of you)
(have lot of things to learn from all of you)
-
neha.patni
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 227
- Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 1:15 am
- Location: Colombo, Sri Lanka
- Thanked: 3 times
I am so sorry...late in posting the OAneha.patni wrote:A study by a group of dentists has concluded that regular use of a certain brand of mouthwash is as effective as flossing in preventing gum disease. The mouthwash company has released a television ad suggesting that people who do not like flossing can now rely solely on mouthwash and brushing to maintain good dental health. A leading manufacturer of dental floss brought a lawsuit against the mouthwash company demanding that the advertisement be discontinued on the grounds that it is misleading.
Which of the following, if true, most supports the mouthwash company's defense that its advertisement promotes greater public health?
A. Since the dental floss company is protesting the advertisement only to protect its own economic self-interest, it
cannot be seen as representing greater public health.
B. Greater public health is best served if people use both mouthwash and dental floss, a combination that has been shown
to be more effective than either method used alone.
C. Many people object to flossing because it is painful and causes their gums to bleed.
D. Since, on average, people are twice as likely to use mouthwash regularly as to floss regularly, the advertisement will increase the number of people who take effective action against gum disease, a serious public health problem.
E. Gum disease has been proven to have links with the early onset of heart disease, one of the top three threats to public health in terms of mortality.m
OA D
-
reply2spg
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 1261
- Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2008 3:46 am
- Thanked: 27 times
- GMAT Score:570
Thanks Neha, but I don't agree with this OA
will PM some expert.
will PM some expert.
neha.patni wrote:I am so sorry...late in posting the OAneha.patni wrote:A study by a group of dentists has concluded that regular use of a certain brand of mouthwash is as effective as flossing in preventing gum disease. The mouthwash company has released a television ad suggesting that people who do not like flossing can now rely solely on mouthwash and brushing to maintain good dental health. A leading manufacturer of dental floss brought a lawsuit against the mouthwash company demanding that the advertisement be discontinued on the grounds that it is misleading.
Which of the following, if true, most supports the mouthwash company's defense that its advertisement promotes greater public health?
A. Since the dental floss company is protesting the advertisement only to protect its own economic self-interest, it
cannot be seen as representing greater public health.
B. Greater public health is best served if people use both mouthwash and dental floss, a combination that has been shown
to be more effective than either method used alone.
C. Many people object to flossing because it is painful and causes their gums to bleed.
D. Since, on average, people are twice as likely to use mouthwash regularly as to floss regularly, the advertisement will increase the number of people who take effective action against gum disease, a serious public health problem.
E. Gum disease has been proven to have links with the early onset of heart disease, one of the top three threats to public health in terms of mortality.m
OA D
Sudhanshu
(have lot of things to learn from all of you)
(have lot of things to learn from all of you)
GMAT/MBA Expert
-
Stacey Koprince
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 2228
- Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 3:28 pm
- Location: Montreal, Canada
- Thanked: 639 times
- Followed by:694 members
- GMAT Score:780
Got your PM! Okay, let's see...
Q: strengthen the idea that ad promotes greater public health
A:
(p) dentists' study: use mouthwash = eff. as flossing
(p) MW comp has ad: don't like floss, only use MW
(p) F comp sued: misleading ad
Conclusion is not in the argument; it's in the question. A little bit of a disconnect, though. The question says "greater PUBLIC health" while the argument says they claim "good DENTAL health." Typo when transcribing? Sloppy editing by the question's author? A little scope-change they're hoping people won't catch and the problem hinges on it? Not sure. I've never seen the real test change the scope of the conclusion in this way in the question. If a leap like that is made, that leap shows up in the conclusion as part of the original person's / company's / whoever's argument.
Okay, to the answers. 1st pass: decide between "definitely no" and "maybe."
A) dental floss company. conclusion not about them. we don't care. eliminate.
B) the issue isn't between using MW alone or using both. It's about replacing F with MW. Maybe that is "greater public health" than using F alone. who knows? eliminate.
C) they may "object" but this doesn't say they don't F as a result, or that they'd be more likely to use MW than F. also, the argument is about *replacing* F with MW ("can NOW rely SOLELY on MW"), which means those people are using F, which gives evidence that at least some of the "objectors" floss anyway. no evidence that the "objectors" don't floss or don't floss as much as the general population or whatever. eliminate.
D) ah, now we're talking about people doing MW more than F. ok. it's not a slam dunk, but it's a maybe.
E) says nothing about F vs. MW. eliminate.
Look at that - only D is a maybe. Guess that's the right one!
Q: strengthen the idea that ad promotes greater public health
A:
(p) dentists' study: use mouthwash = eff. as flossing
(p) MW comp has ad: don't like floss, only use MW
(p) F comp sued: misleading ad
Conclusion is not in the argument; it's in the question. A little bit of a disconnect, though. The question says "greater PUBLIC health" while the argument says they claim "good DENTAL health." Typo when transcribing? Sloppy editing by the question's author? A little scope-change they're hoping people won't catch and the problem hinges on it? Not sure. I've never seen the real test change the scope of the conclusion in this way in the question. If a leap like that is made, that leap shows up in the conclusion as part of the original person's / company's / whoever's argument.
Okay, to the answers. 1st pass: decide between "definitely no" and "maybe."
A) dental floss company. conclusion not about them. we don't care. eliminate.
B) the issue isn't between using MW alone or using both. It's about replacing F with MW. Maybe that is "greater public health" than using F alone. who knows? eliminate.
C) they may "object" but this doesn't say they don't F as a result, or that they'd be more likely to use MW than F. also, the argument is about *replacing* F with MW ("can NOW rely SOLELY on MW"), which means those people are using F, which gives evidence that at least some of the "objectors" floss anyway. no evidence that the "objectors" don't floss or don't floss as much as the general population or whatever. eliminate.
D) ah, now we're talking about people doing MW more than F. ok. it's not a slam dunk, but it's a maybe.
E) says nothing about F vs. MW. eliminate.
Look at that - only D is a maybe. Guess that's the right one!
Please note: I do not use the Private Messaging system! I will not see any PMs that you send to me!!
Stacey Koprince
GMAT Instructor
Director of Online Community
Manhattan GMAT
Contributor to Beat The GMAT!
Learn more about me
Stacey Koprince
GMAT Instructor
Director of Online Community
Manhattan GMAT
Contributor to Beat The GMAT!
Learn more about me
