Question

Which of the following is a factor that gave rise to the call that the treatment should be offered to anybody at risk of a heart attack or stroke? A. the realization that the treatment is literally a life saver B. the realization that not every person at risk can gain considerable benefits from the treatment C. the realization that in those most at risk the treatment reduces the risk of an attack by as much as a third D. the realization that the risk of a heart attack is much higher in people who smoke, are overweight and have high cholesterol levels and blood pressure E. the realization that benefits from the treatment were seen in many different patient types

Short answer

C

Step-by-step solution

- Understand the Question

Identify what the question is asking: It is looking for a factor that led to the call for treatment to be offered to anyone at risk of a heart attack or stroke.

- Analyze Each Option

Go through each option and determine if it supports offering treatment to anyone at risk of a heart attack or stroke.

- Evaluate Option A

Option A states that the treatment is literally a life saver. While important, this does not specifically address offering the treatment to all at-risk individuals.

- Evaluate Option B

Option B suggests not every at-risk individual benefits considerably. This argument does not support offering treatment to everyone at risk.

- Evaluate Option C

Option C notes that in those most at risk, treatment reduces the risk of an attack by as much as a third. This supports the treatment being significant and potentially life-saving for at-risk individuals.

- Evaluate Option D

Option D highlights the higher risk in people who smoke, are overweight and have high cholesterol and blood pressure, but doesn't directly indicate treatment for all at-risk individuals.

- Evaluate Option E

Option E states that benefits from the treatment were seen in many different patient types. This supports the idea of offering the treatment to a wide range of at-risk individuals.

- Choose the Best Answer

Compare the evaluations. Options C and E most directly support the idea of offering treatment to anybody at risk, but Option C directly quantifies the benefit, making it the stronger justification.

Key concepts

Critical Thinking

Critical thinking is crucial for solving GMAT problems effectively. It involves analyzing and evaluating an issue to form a clear judgment.
First, understand what the question asks by breaking it down into simpler parts. Here, it asks for a factor that justifies offering treatment to anyone at risk of a heart attack or stroke.
Next, scrutinize available information and assess its relevance. For each option, think critically about whether it justifies universal treatment. This process helps eliminate less pertinent options and emphasizes the stronger arguments.
Critical thinking also involves questioning assumptions and considering alternative perspectives. It ensures that the selected answer is not just correct but also the most logically sound.

Logical Reasoning

Logical reasoning helps in evaluating each option to determine its validity in answering the question. Start by understanding the logic or rationale behind each option.
For option A, while stating the treatment is a lifesaver is compelling, it doesn’t mention all at-risk individuals. This logic fails to meet the main criterion.
Similarly, option B, which talks about not all individuals benefiting, does not support universal treatment. Option D focuses on specific groups at higher risk but doesn't generalize.
In contrast, option C emphasizes that treatment significantly reduces risk for those most at risk, providing a strong logical basis for treating all at-risk individuals. Option E underscores benefits in various patient types, supporting broad application.
Recognizing these logical connections helps identify the answer that fully satisfies the question.

Answer Evaluation

Evaluating answers is a process of validation and elimination. After understanding each option’s logic, you need to assess which one best fits the question.
In this exercise, the goal is to find which realization justifies offering treatment to all at-risk individuals. Begin by eliminating clearly irrelevant or weak options.
For instance, options B and D are less convincing because they don’t address all at-risk individuals. Then, focus on comparing the remaining strong options.
Here, both options C and E support broad treatment application but through different reasoning. Option C provides a quantifiable benefit for those most at risk, making it a potent argument.
By evaluating answers in terms of direct relevance and strength of justification, you can discern the best choice more easily.

Problem Analysis

Problem analysis involves a structured approach to breaking down the question and options to find the optimal solution.
First, restate the question in simpler terms. The exercise asks for a reason that justifies offering treatment to everyone at risk of heart attacks or strokes.
Break each option down to understand its core message. Option A mentions treatment as a lifesaver. Option B notes the limited benefit to certain individuals. Option C quantifies the risk reduction in those most at risk. Option D highlights the higher risk in specific groups. Option E talks about observed benefits across various patient types.
Apply the analysis to see which option directly supports universal application. Option C’s quantification of risk reduction provides the strongest support.
Engaging in systematic problem analysis ensures a thorough understanding and helps in choosing the best answer logically and effectively.