1. Good post? |

## heart attack

Of 2,500 people who survived a first heart attack, those who did not smoke had their first heart attack at a median age of 62. However, of those 2,500, people who smoked two packs of cigarettes a day had their first heart attack at a median age of 51. On the basis of this information, it can be concluded that nonsmokers tend to have a first heart attack eleven years later than do people who smoke two packs of cigarettes a day.
The conclusion is incorrectly drawn from the information given because this information does not include
(A) the relative severity of heart attacks suffered by smokers and nonsmokers
(B) the nature of the different medical treatments that smokers and nonsmokers received after they had survived their first heart attack
(C) how many of the 2,500 people studied suffered a second heart attack
(D) the earliest age at which a person who smoked two packs a day had his or her first heart attack
(E) data on people who did not survive a first heart attack

2. Good post? |
D. What if a person starts smoking at the age of 63?

What if a person starts smoking at the age of 60?

This reveals the weakness of the argument and, hence, the conclusion.

3. Good post? |
I also thought so but Official Answer is given as E

4. Good post? |
I dont know man... whats the source of the question? Let us wait for an explanation .. I'll get cracking now !

5. Good post? |
1000CR - LSAT Question

6. Good post? |
Official Answer is correct. A tough one

The conclusion is drawn based on a mere subset(people who suffered a heart attack and survived) of the total sample space (people who suffered a heart attack).

If non-smokers who died of a heart attack died at an average age of 51 as well then the conclusion would not hold

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•

SEO by vBSEO ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.