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

Redeem

Vitamin C

Expert replies
by drgmatIL » Thu Sep 04, 2008 1:00 am
A nutritionist studying the effects of massive doses of vitamin C found that of a group of 600 people who regularly took 1,500 mg of vitamin C daily for a year, fewer than 9 percent suffered serious cases of flu; of a group of 600 people who took 250 mg of vitamin C (the standard recommended daily allowance) daily for a year, 34 percent suffered at least one serious case of flu; and of a group of 600 people who took no vitamin C for a year (other than that found in the foods in a balanced diet), 32 percent suffered at least one serious case of flu.
Which of the following hypotheses is best supported by the evidence above?
(A) The effectiveness of vitamin C in preventing serious cases of flu increases in direct proportion to the amount of vitamin C taken
(B) Vitamin C is helpful in preventing disease.
(C) Doses of vitamin C that exceed the standard recommended daily allowance by 500 percent will reduce the incidence of serious cases of flu by 25 percent.
(D) Massive doses of vitamin C can help to prevent serious case of flu.
(E) A balanced diet contains less than 250 mg of vitamin C.


can someone explain to me why C is wrong?
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by raunekk » Thu Sep 04, 2008 5:09 am
imo:D

OA???
Join the discussion

by vivek.kapoor83 » Thu Sep 04, 2008 5:14 am
IMO D it shows that if low amount of Vitamins is taken, still flu can occur. So, If a massive dose is given flu didnt occur.So IMO D
Join the discussion

by rajasiddarth » Thu Sep 04, 2008 9:42 am
To DRGMAT....


D is the right answer..

C is wrong because it says increasing dosage by 500% decreases the incidence of flu by 25%... so 25% of 34 is 8.5... so according to it 25.5% of ppl should have been affected... but only 9% are affected
Join the discussion

by raunekk » Thu Sep 04, 2008 11:16 am
C says..

Doses of vitamin C that exceed the standard recommended daily allowance by 500 percent will reduce the incidence of serious cases of flu by 25 percent.

language is strong..

thr is no surity given in d premises tat allowance by 500 percent will reduce the incidence of serious cases...
Join the discussion

by James_83 » Thu Sep 04, 2008 7:00 pm
Hmmmm...raunek..Tht makes sense...!!!

Gud one...!!
Join the discussion

by stubbornp » Fri Sep 05, 2008 1:07 am
imo D
Join the discussion

by niraj_a » Mon Sep 22, 2008 7:51 am
E got me thinking for a while, and C seemed to strong of language.

Chose D in the end.
Join the discussion

by john83.amar » Thu May 12, 2016 11:42 am
I'm pretty confident that D is correct answer
Join the discussion