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

Redeem

nerves

Expert replies
by phelps » Tue Jul 07, 2009 2:29 pm
Damaged nerves in the spinal cord do not regenerate themselves naturally, nor even under the spur of nerve-growth stimulants. The reason, recently discovered, is the presence of nerve-growth inhibitors in the spinal cord. Antibodies that deactivate those inhibitors have now been developed. Clearly, then, nerve repair will be a standard medical procedure in the foreseeable future.
Which of the following, if true, casts the most serious doubt on the accuracy of the prediction above?
(A) Prevention of the regeneration of damaged nerves is merely a by-product of the main function in the human body of the substances inhibiting nerve growth.
(B) Certain nerve-growth stimulants have similar chemical structures to those of the antibodies against nerve-growth inhibitors.
(C) Nerves in the brain are similar to nerves in the spinal cord in their inability to regenerate themselves naturally.
(D) Researchers have been able to stimulate the growth of nerves not located in the spinal cord by using only nerve-growth stimulants.
(E) Deactivating the substances inhibiting nerve growth for an extended period would require a steady supply of antibodies
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by ssmiles08 » Tue Jul 07, 2009 3:00 pm
IMO its b/w A and B.

I want to say B, but I can't even comprehend what A is saying...so I am at a loss here :?
Join the discussion

by Sharma_Gaurav » Tue Jul 07, 2009 4:04 pm
Clear B is the choice -

A -> does not weaken . as it says prevention of the nerve growth is just a by product of inhibitors.

C -> never discussed in argument. only nerves in spinal cord are metioned

D -> does not weaken, argument talks about nerves in spinal ....

E-> again does not weaken concusion
Join the discussion

by mehravikas » Tue Jul 07, 2009 5:40 pm
Great question. Stuck between B and E.

IMO 'B'
Join the discussion

by raghavsarathy » Tue Jul 07, 2009 9:06 pm
IMHO - A

A says that "the substances inhibiting nerve growth have more than one function". Hence if the antibodies developed can deactivate these substances then we can lose more than one functionality of these sustances , some of which might actually be needed by the body. This is not desirable.

OA pls.
Join the discussion

by dumb.doofus » Tue Jul 07, 2009 10:50 pm
IMO A.

C D and E are out for reasons already mentioned, so I wont delve into that..

I dont think B can be the answer.. B says: Certain nerve-growth stimulants have similar chemical structures to those of the antibodies against nerve-growth inhibitors.
This is actually strengthening the argument that nerve repair will be a standard medical procedure in the foreseeable future.

A is weakening.. coz it says: Prevention of the regeneration of damaged nerves is merely a by-product of the main function in the human body of the substances inhibiting nerve growth. So this can't be a standard medical procedure..
One love, one blood, one life. You got to do what you should.
https://dreambigdreamhigh.blocked/
https://gmattoughies.blocked/
Join the discussion

by hk » Wed Jul 08, 2009 10:52 am
I would go with A.

A says that the main role of "nerve-growth inhibitors" is something else and preventing the regrowth of damaged nerves is just a by-product. So if the antibodies deactivate these "nerve-growth inhibitors" then the main function that these things do would be stopped. Maybe the main function is an important function. So, this procedure of taking Anti-bodies can never be a standard medical procedure as it might cause some serious harm preventing the above mentioned "main function".

Hope i delivered my thought clearly!!!

B is not the correct choice because, having similar chemical structure has nothing to do with the effect. Sorry for sounding like a nerd here but for example, Water (H20) and Hydrogen per oxide (H2O2) have SIMILAR chemical structure but perform different functions. So we cannot assume that since the antibodies have SIMILAR (not same) chemical structure they would also fail in their duties!!!
Wanna know what I'm upto? Follow me on twitter: https://twitter.com/harikrish
Join the discussion

by gmat740 » Wed Jul 08, 2009 11:07 am
IMO A
(A) Prevention of the regeneration of damaged nerves is merely a by-product of the main function in the human body of the substances inhibiting nerve growth.

Main function is something else.

Now why B is wrong:

(B) Certain nerve-growth stimulants have similar chemical structures to those of the antibodies against nerve-growth inhibitors.

"Certain" makes this answer choice incorrect because even if certain stimulants have similarity in the chemical structure does not mean all will have, so does not weaken.
Join the discussion

by ssmiles08 » Wed Jul 08, 2009 5:35 pm
raghavsarathy wrote:IMHO - A

A says that "the substances inhibiting nerve growth have more than one function". Hence if the antibodies developed can deactivate these substances then we can lose more than one functionality of these sustances , some of which might actually be needed by the body. This is not desirable.

OA pls.
That makes SO MUCH sense now.

IMO A then.

I would cross off B b/c like hk said, similar chemical structure doesn't mean that they would function the same way.
Join the discussion

by phelps » Thu Jul 09, 2009 3:46 am
OA -A
Join the discussion

by james33 » Sun May 15, 2016 8:29 pm
It seems to me that the right answer is A.
Join the discussion