CR2

[Shawshank]

hi,

Please provide your answers with explanations.

[hardik.jadeja]

IMO A.

If the patients with high blood pressure are also regularly exercising and still having high blood pressure then the claim given the argument is false.

Although option D also looks like a contender to me, I would go with A. Nice question by the way.. thanks for posting it.

[jube]

Conclusion: Drug is not as effective in reducing blood pressure in people with high BP as is exercise
Premise 1: Drug reduced the BP of high BP people from 30% above normal to 10% above normal
Premise 2: Patients with normal BP exercise 30mins/day for 5 days & maintained a normal BP

Answer B (I applied the negation technique for finding the right assumption: If patients with high BP achieved normal BP with the drug alone then the drug will be as effective in reducing the BP as exercising)

This is a tough one... what's the OA?

thanks

[outreach]

B looks more correct
for exercising a percentage of individuals sampled is given. but for drug users nothing is given

[amitu]

IMO D

beacuse the valid comparaison of effect of drug and exercise would be done only when excercise has same effect on the people with high BP and normal BP .

[amitu]

expert please comment

[missionGMAT007]

IMO D
B is not right because the question is not talking about 'below normal level' but rather 'normal blood pressure'

Let us consider D,
If daily exercise has same effect is patients with high blood pressure, then we can conclude that the drug is not effective
If daily exercise do not have the same effect in patients, lets say the bp reduced to 20% above normal, then we can conclude that the drug is effective.

[diebeatsthegmat]

hi,

Please provide your answers with explanations.

actually i dont know which option i should choose but i prefer D to B because B says taking drug alone cant below nomal blood pressure while we just need to take drug in order to balance the high blood pressure

[Shawshank]

OA - D

[nikhilkatira]

OA - D

Very good question..whats the source ?

[nikhilkatira]

IMO A.

If the patients with high blood pressure are also regularly exercising and still having high blood pressure then the claim given the argument is false.

Although option D also looks like a contender to me, I would go with A. Nice question by the way.. thanks for posting it.

why is A wrong ?

[hardik.jadeja]

IMO A.

If the patients with high blood pressure are also regularly exercising and still having high blood pressure then the claim given the argument is false.

Although option D also looks like a contender to me, I would go with A. Nice question by the way.. thanks for posting it.

why is A wrong ?

Now I see why D is the answer, not A.

Both A and D looked like a contender to me because I thought both are saying the same thing. But they are not.

The passage talks about the effects of exercising only on normal-blood pressure patients and it says that they never developed high-blood pressure because of exercising.

The main point of argument is the comparison between the effects of a certain drug and the effects of exercising.

The conclusion - Exercising regularly is better than the new drug

Reasons- Exercising helped 80% of normal-blood pressure patients maintain their blood-pressure level normal. Whereas the effects of the drug(only 30% to 10%) are not as good as exercising.

To prove this conclusion we need to see whether exercising could help more high-blood pressure patients than the drug could help. Only than the conclusion stands true.

Option D says exercising has same effect on blood-pressure in all patients. In a way, D is saying if high-blood pressure patients exercise regularly, 80% of them will be able to maintain their blood-pressure to normal level. That's what we need, the figure of 80%(more than 30%), to prove the conclusion.

Option A says none of the patients with high-blood pressure exercise regularly. I thought If we validate this fact and find that some of them do exercise regularly and still have high-blood pressure, then this finding will help us determine the effects of exercising on patients with high-blood pressure. But even though some of the patients do exercise regularly and still have high-blood pressure, it doesn't help us prove the conclusion as the passage claims that exercise helps only 80% of the patients.

You may find my explanation confusing, since I am feeling sleepy.

[nikhilkatira]

IMO A.

If the patients with high blood pressure are also regularly exercising and still having high blood pressure then the claim given the argument is false.

Although option D also looks like a contender to me, I would go with A. Nice question by the way.. thanks for posting it.

why is A wrong ?

Now I see why D is the answer, not A.

Both A and D looked like a contender to me because I thought both are saying the same thing. But they are not.

The passage talks about the effects of exercising only on normal-blood pressure patients and it says that they never developed high-blood pressure because of exercising.

The main point of argument is the comparison between the effects of a certain drug and the effects of exercising.

The conclusion - Exercising regularly is better than the new drug

Reasons- Exercising helped 80% of normal-blood pressure patients maintain their blood-pressure level normal. Whereas the effects of the drug(only 30% to 10%) are not as good as exercising.

To prove this conclusion we need to see whether exercising could help more high-blood pressure patients than the drug could help. Only than the conclusion stands true.

Option D says exercising has same effect on blood-pressure in all patients. In a way, D is saying if high-blood pressure patients exercise regularly, 80% of them will be able to maintain their blood-pressure to normal level. That's what we need, the figure of 80%(more than 30%), to prove the conclusion.

Option A says none of the patients with high-blood pressure exercise regularly. I thought If we validate this fact and find that some of them do exercise regularly and still have high-blood pressure, then this finding will help us determine the effects of exercising on patients with high-blood pressure. But even though some of the patients do exercise regularly and still have high-blood pressure, it doesn't help us prove the conclusion as the passage claims that exercise helps only 80% of the patients.

You may find my explanation confusing, since I am feeling sleepy.

thanks hardik for your explanation.

[adi_800]

The conclusion of this argument is : the drug is not as effective in reducing blood pressure in patients with high blood pressure as is exercise..
Now the exercise is carried only by those who have normal blood levels...But the conclusion says that exercise is also helpful to those who have high blood pressure...
I think now the gap is clear...even if exercise is not used by high blood pressure patients, exercise is useful to them...
How come?
Coz exercise has the same effect irrespective of whether you have high or normal blood pressure...
So, this must be assumed...
N that's what D says...
This is a example of supporter assumption in which new element is present and you need to connect this new element to the premises..
Good question..Source please...

[kvcpk]

Option A says none of the patients with high-blood pressure exercise regularly. I thought If we validate this fact and find that some of them do exercise regularly and still have high-blood pressure, then this finding will help us determine the effects of exercising on patients with high-blood pressure. But even though some of the patients do exercise regularly and still have high-blood pressure, it doesn't help us prove the conclusion as the passage claims that exercise helps only 80% of the patients.

You may find my explanation confusing, since I am feeling sleepy.

Hi Hardik
Can you please restate why option A is wrong? I am a little confused.