Question

When a study of aspirin's ability to prevent heart attacks in humans yielded positive results, researchers immediately submitted those results to a medical journal, which published them six weeks later. Had the results been published sooner, many of the heart attacks that occurred during the delay could have been prevented. The conclusion drawn above would be most undermined if it were true that (A) the medical journal's staff worked overtime in order to publish the study's results as soon as possible (B) studies of aspirin's usefulness in reducing heart attacks in laboratory animals remain inconclusive (C) people who take aspirin regularly suffer a higher-than-average incidence of stomach ulcers (D) the medical journal's official policy is to publish articles only after an extensive review process (E) a person's risk of suffering a heart attack drops only after that person has taken aspirin regularly for two years

Short answer

Option (E) undermines the conclusion, as aspirin only reduces risks after two years of use.

Step-by-step solution

Understand the Conclusion

The conclusion states that if the study results were published sooner, many heart attacks could have been prevented. This implies that knowing and applying the findings quickly would reduce the occurrence of heart attacks.

Identify the Answer Choice's Relevance

To undermine the conclusion, find the option that shows earlier publication would not have prevented heart attacks. Focus on the time it takes for aspirin to be effective or any process delaying the benefits to individuals.

Evaluate the Impact of Each Option

- (A) Suggests efficiency in publication, so it doesn't undermine early prevention effectiveness. - (B) Laboratory findings do not directly impact human heart attack prevention in the stated conclusion. - (C) Increased risk of ulcers does not negate the heart attack prevention claim, just adds another risk factor. - (D) Describes a delay reason but doesn't address whether faster results could have still prevented heart attacks. - (E) States that effective heart attack prevention by aspirin requires two years of regular usage, suggesting early publication alone wouldn't prevent immediate heart attacks.

Select the Best Undermining Option

The best option is (E) because it directly indicates that simply publishing the results sooner would not have an immediate preventive effect, as aspirin requires two years to significantly lower heart attack risk.

Key concepts

Critical Reasoning

To excel in critical reasoning, it is essential to comprehend the core argument of any given scenario. In the provided exercise, the main conclusion revolves around the assumption that publishing aspirin's study results earlier could have prevented many heart attacks. Critical reasoning involves analyzing this conclusion to find any weaknesses or assumptions within it.

Understanding the conclusion means mapping out what is literally being assumed. This exercise also involves finding evidence or exceptions that challenge the conclusion. For our exercise, the conclusion is undermined if it turns out that quicker dissemination of study findings wouldn’t have had an immediate impact on preventing heart attacks.

To effectively practice critical reasoning:

• Identify the argument's conclusion and its premises.
• Check assumptions and look for alternative explanations.
• Choose arguments or evidence that could contradict or weaken the stated conclusion.

Logical Reasoning

Logical reasoning is all about applying structured thinking to assess conclusions and arguments based on given premises. In our scenario, it's crucial to evaluate the logical link between the publication of study results and the prevention of heart attacks. This requires logical reasoning skills to judge whether sooner publication would certainly lead to fewer heart attacks.

One option suggests that the advantage would occur only after two years of regular aspirin intake. This not only provides a logical reason but also forms a counterexample that directly affects the original conclusion. When logically analyzing an argument:

• Focus on how premises support or undermine a conclusion.
• Evaluate the strength of these logical connections.
• Consider any assumptions that might not hold true in every case.

In our example, choice (E) weakened the conclusion. It logically pointed out that despite earlier publication, immediate prevention of heart attacks wouldn't occur without a prolonged period of aspirin use.

Reading Comprehension

Reading comprehension is the ability to process text, understand its meaning, and integrate that with existing knowledge. In the exercise, effectively grasping each option and understanding how it relates to the main argument is key to picking the correct answer.

For this exercise, you must not only read the original conclusion but also interpret each response option to see how it may or may not affect the conclusion. Successful reading comprehension involves:

• Reading the passage thoroughly to grasp the overarching concept.
• Analyzing what specific details in the text mean for the conclusion.
• Focusing on both explicit and implicit suggestions within the text.

With these skills, you can evaluate the relevance of each option. In this case, choice (E) stood out because it highlighted a timeline discrepancy between publication and the prevention of heart attacks.