• 7 CATs FREE!
    If you earn 100 Forum Points

    Engage in the Beat The GMAT forums to earn
    100 points for $49 worth of Veritas practice GMATs FREE

    Veritas Prep
    VERITAS PRACTICE GMAT EXAMS
    Earn 10 Points Per Post
    Earn 10 Points Per Thanks
    Earn 10 Points Per Upvote
    REDEEM NOW

magmat- natural compond 500-600

This topic has expert replies
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1309
Joined: 17 Mar 2010
Thanked: 33 times
Followed by:5 members

magmat- natural compond 500-600

by pradeepkaushal9518 » Mon Jul 12, 2010 9:11 pm
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.

plz explain yr answer

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 62
Joined: 16 Mar 2010
Thanked: 1 times

by raunakrajan » Mon Jul 12, 2010 10:52 pm
pradeepkaushal9518 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.

plz explain yr answer

is the answer "D"?

i looked at it by using alternate models causation technique.
pls let me know whats the correct OA

Raunak!

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1460
Joined: 29 Dec 2009
Thanked: 135 times
Followed by:7 members

by selango » Mon Jul 12, 2010 10:54 pm
IMO C

Why the advocate comparing echinacea with ephedra?Because they seems to have the comparable side effects.
If they don't have any comparable side effects,the advocate need not bother about echinacea.
--Anand--

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 62
Joined: 16 Mar 2010
Thanked: 1 times

by raunakrajan » Mon Jul 12, 2010 10:58 pm
selango wrote:IMO C

Why the advocate comparing echinacea with ephedra?Because they seems to have the comparable side effects.
If they don't have any comparable side effects,the advocate need not bother about echinacea.
Anand! dai, the reason i din choose C is because its stated in the passage about Ephedra "the prohibition was unreasonable" which might imply that it may not have grave side effects, contrarily it could be something to do with the government. hence
IMO D
may be wrong though mate!

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1309
Joined: 17 Mar 2010
Thanked: 33 times
Followed by:5 members

by pradeepkaushal9518 » Mon Jul 12, 2010 11:36 pm
what about A or B . i was confused beteen A and B? oa later on

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1893
Joined: 30 May 2010
Thanked: 215 times
Followed by:6 members

by kvcpk » Mon Jul 12, 2010 11:38 pm
IMO C.

Advocate is trying to compare the two products. Hence C sounds good.

Here is why others are wrong:
A: Passage links Echinacea and health food stores. But not Ephedra and health food stores.
"government prohibited the sale of dietary supplements containing ephedra" doesnot mean that it is banned in health food stores.
B. Exaggeration. Also, if this is true, it weakens the argument.
D. Advocate doesnt make any statements against the government. Negate this option:
The government should have the authority to prohibit natural compounds.
Will this affect the passage. NO. because, it only says Government has authority.. but not that it should ban.
E. Doesnt interfere with the advocate's words.

Hope this helps!!

Legendary Member
Posts: 544
Joined: 08 Oct 2009
Location: Pune, India
Thanked: 31 times
Followed by:2 members

by adi_800 » Thu Jul 15, 2010 9:24 am
The conclusion of the argument is
This prohibition is unreasonable. Why it is unreasonable?
Because the two things that are being compared are same. If they are same, then why one is banned and one is not...
I think C should be the answer..

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 364
Joined: 20 Apr 2010
Thanked: 31 times
Followed by:3 members

by FightWithGMAT » Fri Jul 16, 2010 1:12 pm
pradeepkaushal9518 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.

plz explain yr answer
I think the answer is C.

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 385
Joined: 12 Jul 2009
Thanked: 29 times
Followed by:2 members
GMAT Score:710

by debmalya_dutta » Fri Jul 16, 2010 8:17 pm
I too will go with C
The author presents the conclusion that "This prohibition is unreasonable" based on the premises
1. Ephedra is a naturally occurring compound which was prohibited from being sold .
Presents the counter argument that "Echinacea is another natural compound that has been shown to have side effects, yet echinacea is widely available at health food stores. "

But the basis of the counter argument is that Ephedra and echinacea have comparable side effects