Another MGMAT Test Question

This topic has expert replies
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 422
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 11:47 am
Thanked: 22 times
Followed by:1 members
GMAT Score:680

Another MGMAT Test Question

by beatthegmatinsept » Mon Aug 23, 2010 8:11 am
Consumer advocate: Ephedra is a naturally occurring compound that some people use as a weight-loss aid. Recently, the government prohibited the sale of dietary supplements containing ephedra on the grounds that ephedra has been shown to have grave side effects. This prohibition is unreasonable. Echinacea is another natural compound that has been shown to have side effects, yet echinacea is widely available at health food stores.

The consumer advocate's argument depends on which of the following assumptions?
a) Before the prohibition, ephedra had been available in health food stores.
b) All natural compounds are safe for human consumption.
c) The side effects of echinacea and ephedra are comparably serious.
d) The government should not hav the authority to prohibit natural compounds.
e) It is unreasonable to protect the health of the public.
Being defeated is often only a temporary condition. Giving up is what makes it permanent.
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 364
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 5:13 am
Thanked: 31 times
Followed by:3 members

by FightWithGMAT » Mon Aug 23, 2010 8:16 am
beatthegmatinsept wrote:Consumer advocate: Ephedra is a naturally occurring compound that some people use as a weight-loss aid. Recently, the government prohibited the sale of dietary supplements containing ephedra on the grounds that ephedra has been shown to have grave side effects. This prohibition is unreasonable. Echinacea is another natural compound that has been shown to have side effects, yet echinacea is widely available at health food stores.

The consumer advocate's argument depends on which of the following assumptions?
a) Before the prohibition, ephedra had been available in health food stores.
b) All natural compounds are safe for human consumption.
c) The side effects of echinacea and ephedra are comparably serious.
d) The government should not hav the authority to prohibit natural compounds.
e) It is unreasonable to protect the health of the public.

IMO C

User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 422
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 11:47 am
Thanked: 22 times
Followed by:1 members
GMAT Score:680

by beatthegmatinsept » Mon Aug 23, 2010 8:31 am
But if the effects of both are comparably serious, doesnt that contradict the arguement where he says "This prohibition is unreasonable".

Why would he call this unreasonable when he is assuming that the effect of both are comparably serious?
Being defeated is often only a temporary condition. Giving up is what makes it permanent.

Legendary Member
Posts: 1119
Joined: Fri May 07, 2010 8:50 am
Thanked: 29 times
Followed by:3 members

by diebeatsthegmat » Mon Aug 23, 2010 9:54 am
beatthegmatinsept wrote:But if the effects of both are comparably serious, doesnt that contradict the arguement where he says "This prohibition is unreasonable".

Why would he call this unreasonable when he is assuming that the effect of both are comparably serious?
i dont understand why my logic is kinda bad tonight, but i think i can help you this ( if i am right)
the argument questions why government bans the sell of edpha while it doesnt prohibit to sell Echin since they are both
natural compound and both have the side effect.
it means the author of this argument thinks that the side effect of Edpha= the side effect of Echin, i meant the level of risk they both have maybe is equal ( comprably serious) thus if govern forbid to sell Edpha medicine, it must forbid also Echin but in fact it didnt

does it help?
i am not sure because i am kinda stagnant tonight

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 866
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 6:46 pm
Location: Gwalior, India
Thanked: 31 times

by goyalsau » Mon Aug 23, 2010 10:03 am
If you go by options there is no other option with which you can go for,
So according to that theory C is the only right answer.

User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 422
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 11:47 am
Thanked: 22 times
Followed by:1 members
GMAT Score:680

by beatthegmatinsept » Mon Aug 23, 2010 10:07 am
I see your points.. but I just don't think this is that good a question ONLY because it makes us select C as the answer knowing that if the side effects of both are comparably serious, then why is the prohibition of one unreasonable. It would have been an ideal choice, if the author's arguement was to prohibit the use of Echinacea as well.

It's only a 500-600 level question, but this one got me.
Being defeated is often only a temporary condition. Giving up is what makes it permanent.

User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 422
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 11:47 am
Thanked: 22 times
Followed by:1 members
GMAT Score:680

by beatthegmatinsept » Tue Aug 24, 2010 7:52 am
OA C
Being defeated is often only a temporary condition. Giving up is what makes it permanent.

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 516
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 6:42 am
Location: Mumbai
Thanked: 14 times
Followed by:1 members
GMAT Score:710

by ankurmit » Wed Aug 25, 2010 4:05 am
IMO C
--------
Ankur mittal