Researchers investigating the virus that causes Sydenham's disease have developed a drug that represents a major step toward their goal...

GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions

Source: Mock

Critical Reasoning

Logically Completes

EASY

...

Notes

Post a Query

Researchers investigating the virus that causes Sydenham's disease have developed a drug that represents a major step toward their goal of finding a treatment that can eliminate the virus from the blood of patients with the disease. After infected patients had completed a course of treatment with the drug, no virus was found in their blood. The researchers cannot yet claim that their goal has been achieved, however, since ______________.

Which of the following most logically completes the argument given?

patients who recover from Sydenham's disease are highly susceptible to reinfection if they are exposed to the virus again

the drug is still being tested to determine whether it is effective against viruses that cause other diseases

it took twice as long to develop the drug as the researchers had originally projected

when the virus is present in the blood in minute amounts, current tests for the virus cannot detect it

when the drug becomes available, it will be more expensive than the drugs currently used to alleviate the symptoms of Sydenham's disease

Solution

Passage Analysis:

Text from Passage	Analysis
Researchers investigating the virus that causes Sydenham's disease have developed a drug that represents a major step toward their goal of finding a treatment that can eliminate the virus from the blood of patients with the disease.	What it says: Scientists created a drug that's a big step toward eliminating the Sydenham's virus from patients' blood What it does: Sets up the research context and establishes the goal What it is: Background information about the research Visualization: Goal: Virus in blood → Drug treatment → No virus in blood
After infected patients had completed a course of treatment with the drug, no virus was found in their blood.	What it says: The drug worked - patients had no detectable virus after treatment What it does: Provides evidence that seems to support achieving the goal What it is: Study results Visualization: Before treatment: Patients with virus → After treatment: No virus detected in blood
The researchers cannot yet claim that their goal has been achieved, however, since _____.	What it says: Despite the positive results, researchers can't say they've reached their goal yet What it does: Creates a contradiction that needs explanation - introduces doubt about the success What it is: Author's transition to identify a problem

Argument Flow:

The argument starts by telling us about a promising drug development, then shows us apparently successful test results, but then surprises us by saying the researchers still can't claim success. This creates a puzzle that we need to solve.

Main Conclusion:

The researchers cannot yet claim their goal of eliminating the virus has been achieved, despite the positive test results.

Logical Structure:

We have what looks like a contradiction: the drug seems to work (no virus found in blood) but the researchers can't claim success yet. The blank needs to explain why success can't be claimed despite the apparent positive results - there must be some limitation or concern about the study that we haven't considered yet.

Prethinking:

Question type:

Logically Completes - We need to find what logically explains why researchers can't claim success despite apparently achieving their goal of eliminating virus from blood

Precision of Claims

The key claim is about eliminating virus 'from the blood' - this is a specific location/scope claim. The researchers' goal was specifically about blood, and they achieved no detectable virus in blood, but something still prevents them from claiming success

Strategy

Since the drug successfully eliminated detectable virus from blood but researchers still can't claim their goal is achieved, we need to identify logical gaps or limitations. The completion should explain why absence of virus in blood doesn't equal complete success in treating the disease. We should think about:

Scope limitations (blood vs other body parts)
Temporal limitations (temporary vs permanent elimination)
Detection limitations (undetectable vs truly eliminated)
Treatment completeness (partial vs complete cure)

Answer Choices Explained

patients who recover from Sydenham's disease are highly susceptible to reinfection if they are exposed to the virus again

This doesn't explain why researchers can't claim their current goal has been achieved. Susceptibility to future reinfection is a separate concern from whether the current treatment successfully eliminated the virus from blood. The researchers' stated goal was elimination from blood, not preventing future reinfection, so this is irrelevant to their current hesitation.

the drug is still being tested to determine whether it is effective against viruses that cause other diseases

This is completely off-topic. Whether the drug works against other viruses has no bearing on whether the researchers achieved their specific goal of eliminating the Sydenham's virus from blood. Testing against other diseases doesn't create doubt about the success of the current study.

it took twice as long to develop the drug as the researchers had originally projected

The timeline for drug development is irrelevant to whether the researchers achieved their goal. Whether it took longer than expected has no logical connection to whether they can claim success based on the study results. Past development time doesn't affect current treatment efficacy.

when the virus is present in the blood in minute amounts, current tests for the virus cannot detect it

This perfectly explains the logical gap! The researchers found 'no virus in blood,' but if tests can't detect very small amounts, then 'no virus detected' doesn't necessarily mean 'no virus present.' The virus might still be there in undetectable quantities, which means true elimination hasn't been proven. This creates reasonable scientific doubt about claiming complete success.

when the drug becomes available, it will be more expensive than the drugs currently used to alleviate the symptoms of Sydenham's disease

Cost considerations have nothing to do with whether the research goal has been scientifically achieved. The expense of future drug availability doesn't impact the researchers' ability to claim they've successfully eliminated virus from blood based on current study results.

Rate this Solution

Tell us what you think about this solution

...

Forum Discussions

Start a new discussion

Post

Previous Attempts

Loading attempts...