The only purpose for which a particular type of tape is needed is to hold certain surgical wounds closed for ten days—the maximum time such wounds need tape. Newtape is a new brand of this type of tape.
Newtape’s salespeople claim that Newtape will improve healing because Newtape adheres twice as long as the currently used tape does.
Which of the following statements, if true, would most seriously call into question the claim made by Newtape’s salespeople?
(A) Most surgical wounds take about ten days to heal.
(B) Most surgical tape is purchased by hospitals and clinics rather than by individual surgeons.
(C) The currently used tape’s adhesiveness is more than sufficient to hold wounds closed for ten
days.
(D) Neither Newtape nor the currently used tape adheres well to skin that has not been cleaned.
(E) Newtape’s adhesion to skin that has been coated with a special chemical preparation is
only half as good as the currently used tape’s adhesion to such coated skin.
A : shows that healing is not dependent on the tape…hence weakens the claim that healing can be improved by using newtape
C(?)
Salespeople used this logic
: Newtape adheres twice as long as the currently used tape does.
However, current tape’s adhesion is enough to heal the maximum time such wounds need tape.
Thus, the salespeople’s claim Newtape is better than current tape cannot be stood.
C
c
Ans is C
C
I like A and second Nishant’s logic
Can any one tell me why no one considered E? Is it out of scope – it does not seem to be so to me.
sandeepdeb, the argument does not say anything about coated skins. so E is out of scope.
Answer is C
A is wrong because it just rephrases the premise (given in teh begining of teh argument) that surgical wounds heal in 10 days
one more for C..
C ……………..
C
(C) The currently used tape’s adhesiveness is more than sufficient to hold wounds closed for ten
days.
C
C
It will be C
ll go with C
Why not E?
Its a surgical wound, and surgical wounds are always coated with special chemicals (betadiene, savlon, spirit).
c
C and E are good options but :::: C looks far better
It got to be C
Option:E
Answer should be E.
C –> Just says that the current tape is good enough. It does not weaken the arguement that the new tape heals wounds better.
E –> Gives a good reason as to why the Newtape is not a good alternative.
E
bcz what is claimed is newtape will improve healing and E clearly puts that into question since tape is not even able to adhere to medically treated skin having chemicals on it.
C
Again option A talks about -most surgical wounds- whereas the premise of argument is -certain surgical wounds-., which may ore may not lie in the domain of -most-.
(E) – As the statement not only says that current tape is good, but also brings in a special condition where the new tape doesn’t hold good.
I think (E) is the appropriate answer to this stimulus.
Since (E) states that Newtape’s adhesion to skin that has been coated with a special chemical preparation is
only half as good as the currently used tape’s adhesion to such coated skin. which is contradictory to the last sentence of the stimulus which mentions the claim of the salespeople.
C
C but how can we confirm the answer
c:
E….If E is assumably be true, then the conclusion given in initial premise doesnt hold gud….
Option C.
Option E introduces a new concept – Chemical Solution. The claim or argument never mentions about the chemical solution.
Also, C weakens the argument saying the tapes (available in market) are sufficient to last for 10 days.
Answer: C.
Option E introduces a new concept – Chemical Solution. In argument there is no mention about chemical solution. where does it come from? How it can weaken the argument?
Option C weakens the argument since it suggests that available tapes in market are sufficient to last for 10 days and heal the wounds.
E