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

Redeem

Is D wrong?

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 58
Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 3:35 pm
Location: Seoul, Korea
Thanked: 2 times

Is D wrong?

by kulksnikhil » Sat Nov 11, 2006 2:46 am
It has been a commonplace in medical literature that the ingestion of drug L,, in combination with the application of lotion M, causes appearance of adverse reaction O. Recently however doubts have been cast on the role of lotion M in the appearance of adverse reaction O.

Which one of following research findings could most reasonably have created the doubts referred to above?

A. The appearance of adverse reaction O following the ingestion of drug L and the application of lotion M

B. The absense of adverse reaction O following the ingestion of drug L and the application of lotion M

C. The ingestion of drug L and the appearance of adverse reaction O in the absense of lotion M

D. The absense of adverse reaction O following the ingestion of drug L without the application of lotion M

E. The disappearance of adverse reaction O following the ingestion of drug L and the application of lotion M
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 87
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2006 2:47 am
Thanked: 2 times

by rajs.kumar » Sat Nov 11, 2006 7:17 am
I would go for C.

Reasoning: L and M (ingestion of L and application of M) combine together to causes adverse effect O. If doubts came up on the role of M that basically means L does not need M to cause the effect O. This is captured in C.

On the other hand, the assence of effect O in D could be because L and M did not combine.

C. The ingestion of drug L and the appearance of adverse reaction O in the absense of lotion M

D. The absense of adverse reaction O following the ingestion of drug L without the application of lotion M
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 58
Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 3:35 pm
Location: Seoul, Korea
Thanked: 2 times

by kulksnikhil » Sat Nov 11, 2006 7:37 am
rajs.kumar wrote:I would go for C.

Reasoning: L and M (ingestion of L and application of M) combine together to causes adverse effect O. If doubts came up on the role of M that basically means L does not need M to cause the effect O. This is captured in C.

On the other hand, the assence of effect O in D could be because L and M did not combine.

C. The ingestion of drug L and the appearance of adverse reaction O in the absense of lotion M

D. The absense of adverse reaction O following the ingestion of drug L without the application of lotion M
oops I missed the part that.. 'the adverse effect is due to combination of the two'... thanks for that explanation, but...

the part that confused me (as u have captured in your post) is... the statement.. "recently doubts have been cast on the role played by lotion M".... doesn't "doubt" mean "suspecting" M of being the culprit ?
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 87
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2006 2:47 am
Thanked: 2 times

by rajs.kumar » Sat Nov 11, 2006 10:34 pm
kulksnikhil wrote:
oops I missed the part that.. 'the adverse effect is due to combination of the two'... thanks for that explanation, but...

the part that confused me (as u have captured in your post) is... the statement.. "recently doubts have been cast on the role played by lotion M".... doesn't "doubt" mean "suspecting" M of being the culprit ?
recently doubts have been cast => changes or modifies role

Added to that "role of M for the appearance of O" earlier in the question stem it was stated L and M combined together to cause the effect O. Later doubts have raised meaning M may not be involved in the process. Did I explain it??
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 58
Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 3:35 pm
Location: Seoul, Korea
Thanked: 2 times

by kulksnikhil » Mon Nov 13, 2006 1:03 am
rajs.kumar wrote:
kulksnikhil wrote:
oops I missed the part that.. 'the adverse effect is due to combination of the two'... thanks for that explanation, but...

the part that confused me (as u have captured in your post) is... the statement.. "recently doubts have been cast on the role played by lotion M".... doesn't "doubt" mean "suspecting" M of being the culprit ?
recently doubts have been cast => changes or modifies role

Added to that "role of M for the appearance of O" earlier in the question stem it was stated L and M combined together to cause the effect O. Later doubts have raised meaning M may not be involved in the process. Did I explain it??
Thanks for the explaination raj.. it is pretty clear... I will have to be careful next time... "doubt" would mean, deviation from expectation, whether it positive deviation or negative deviation.
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 559
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 1:29 am
Thanked: 5 times
Followed by:2 members

by Cybermusings » Sun Apr 01, 2007 3:12 am
I would go for Option C...Appearence of an adverse reaction O, after ingestion of the drug but the absence of the Lotion M...goes on to prove that Lotion M has nothing to do with the reaction...It might just happen because of ingestion of L
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 300
Joined: Fri Aug 09, 2013 2:26 am

by khanshainur » Sat Apr 16, 2016 6:45 am
I also would go with option C.I think it is the most logical one.
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1