A study of high blood pressure treatments found that certain meditation techniques and the most commonly prescribed drugs are equally...
GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions
A study of high blood pressure treatments found that certain meditation techniques and the most commonly prescribed drugs are equally effective if the selected treatment is followed as directed over the long term. Half the patients given drugs soon stop taking them regularly, whereas eighty percent of the study's participants who were taught meditation techniques were still regularly using them five years later. Therefore, the meditation treatment is the one likely to produce the best results.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
Passage Analysis:
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
| A study of high blood pressure treatments found that certain meditation techniques and the most commonly prescribed drugs are equally effective if the selected treatment is followed as directed over the long term. |
|
| Half the patients given drugs soon stop taking them regularly, whereas eighty percent of the study's participants who were taught meditation techniques were still regularly using them five years later. |
|
| Therefore, the meditation treatment is the one likely to produce the best results. |
|
Argument Flow:
The argument moves from establishing equal treatment effectiveness, to showing different adherence patterns, to concluding that the treatment with better adherence will produce superior results
Main Conclusion:
Meditation treatment is likely to produce the best results for high blood pressure
Logical Structure:
The argument assumes that higher adherence rates (80% vs 50%) combined with equal effectiveness when followed properly means meditation will have better real-world outcomes. The logic relies on the idea that actual results depend on people actually using the treatment consistently
Prethinking:
Question type:
Weaken - We need to find information that reduces our belief in the conclusion that meditation treatment is likely to produce the best results for high blood pressure
Precision of Claims
The argument makes specific quantitative claims: 50% adherence for drugs vs 80% adherence for meditation, equal effectiveness when followed correctly, and concludes meditation will produce 'best results' overall
Strategy
To weaken this argument, we need to find information that either:
- Shows that despite higher adherence rates, meditation users don't actually get better results
- Reveals problems with how the study was conducted that make the comparison unfair
- Points out that the people who stick with meditation might be fundamentally different from those who stick with drugs in ways that affect outcomes
This talks about dietary changes for high blood pressure, but this doesn't affect the comparison between meditation and drugs. Whether or not people also change their diets doesn't weaken the argument that meditation produces better results than drugs due to higher adherence rates. This is irrelevant to the core logic.
This reveals a critical flaw in the study design. If participants were selected partly based on their willingness to use meditation, then the comparison is fundamentally unfair. We can't conclude that meditation leads to better adherence if the meditation group was pre-selected to be more willing to meditate. This selection bias makes the 80% vs 50% adherence comparison meaningless and directly weakens the conclusion.
The fact that meditation can help people without high blood pressure doesn't weaken the argument about treating those who do have high blood pressure. This information about meditation's effects on healthy people is irrelevant to comparing treatments for patients with the condition.
Knowing that some meditation users were physicians doesn't weaken the argument. While physicians might be more health-conscious, this doesn't undermine the general conclusion that meditation produces better results due to higher adherence rates across the study population.
Information about undiagnosed high blood pressure patients doesn't affect the argument, which focuses on people who are already diagnosed and choosing between treatments. This is about a completely different group of people and doesn't impact the meditation vs drugs comparison.