A Study Of The Benefits Of A Family Of Cholesterol-Lowering Drugs GMAT Reading Comprehension

Reading Passage Question

A study of the benefits of a family of cholesterol-lowering drugs used in the treatment of heart attacks has shown that while the greatest benefits are enjoyed by those at greatest risk of a vascular event, every person at risk can gain considerable benefits from the treatment.These findings have led to calls that it should be offered to anybody at risk of a heart attack or stroke. It has long been known that the treatment, if administered daily to the group most at risk of an attack, cuts that risk by a third. At present, doctors prescribe the treatment only once they have considered a number of factors, including cholesterol level, blood pressure, body fat levels and whether the patient smokes. The new evidence suggests that patients with less than very high levels of cholesterol will also experience a significant drop in their cholesterol levels and a consequent lower risk of a vascular event. In fact, it concludes that the benefits of the treatment are directly proportional to the size of the reduction in cholesterol levels that might be achieved and not the level at which the intervention begins.

“A study of the benefits of a family of cholesterol-lowering drugs”- is a passage for the GMAT that addresses reading comprehension. Candidates must have a firm understanding of GMAT reading comprehension in English. This GMAT reading comprehension section consists of five comprehension questions. The purpose of the GMAT Reading Comprehension questions is to assess a candidate's capacity to understand, evaluate, and apply knowledge or ideas. By responding to the GMAT Reading Comprehension Practice Questions section, candidates can actively practice.

Solutions and Explanation

  1. 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?
  1. the realization that the treatment is literally a life saver
  2. the realization that not every person at risk can gain considerable benefits from the treatment
  3. the realization that in those most at risk the treatment reduces the risk of an attack by as much as a third
  4. 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
  5. the realization that benefits from the treatment were seen in many different patient types

Answer: (E)
Explanation:
The passage claims that it was later discovered that patients of all different patient types benefited from the treatment. This led to the demand that the treatment be made available to anyone who was at risk of having a heart attack or stroke. According to this interpretation, the final option is the right answer.

  1. The treatment is:
  1. a single drug
  2. a family of related drugs
  3. an unspecified intervention
  4. a series of painful injections
  5. administered daily

Answer: (E)
Explanation:
The passage mentions a class of cholesterol-lowering medications, but it also says that the treatment itself is given every day. According to this, the final option is the correct answer. The remaining options are all wrong answers as the statements they have are distorted.

  1. The best summary of the conclusion to be drawn from the evidence of the study is that:
  1. The benefits of the treatment are directly proportional to the size of the reduction in cholesterol levels that might be achieved and not the level at which intervention begins.
  2. This treatment could cut heart attacks by a third.
  3. The treatment should be prescribed to anyone assessed to be at risk of a heart attack or stroke.
  4. There is now a much stronger case for the treatment to be prescribed to a much wider group of patients.
  5. The greatest benefits are enjoyed by those at greatest risk of a vascular event.

Answer: (D)
Explanation:
The fourth option is the correct answer. This is the case because the sentence there best sums up the conclusion. Given the current state of the evidence, it specifies who will profit from the treatment. The remaining options are all wrong answers as they are not the correct summarizations of the conclusion that can be evaluated from the evidence of the study.

  1. Given that the benefits of the treatment are directly proportional to the size of the reduction in cholesterol levels it is correct to say that:
  1. Doctors should offer this treatment to everybody they believe are at risk of a heart attack regardless of their cholesterol levels.
  2. Taking the treatment on a daily basis can cut the risk of a heart attack and stroke by a third.
  3. The treatment may not benefit as wide a range of patients as was originally thought.
  4. Everyone could gain considerable benefits from the treatment.
  5. Doctors should look more to the relative drop in cholesterol that may be achieved, rather than prioritizing patients suffering the very highest levels.

Answer: (E)
Explanation:
It goes without saying that the extent of the reduction in cholesterol levels directly relates to the treatment's advantages. In light of this, it is accurate to state that physicians should give patients with the lowest possible cholesterol levels less of a priority than they should. With this interpretation, the final option is the right answer.

  1. Which of the statements, if true, would most weaken the claim that patients with less than very high levels of cholesterol will also experience a significant drop in their cholesterol levels and consequently a much lower risk of a vascular event?
  1. The largest benefits from the treatment are seen among those in greatest risk of a vascular event, and those with less than very high levels of cholesterol are not at greatest risk.
  2. Unfortunately, the best results from the treatment are only obtained when the treatment is customized to the individual patient’s cholesterol levels and requires someone with less than very high cholesterol levels to take a smaller daily dose.
  3. Preliminary evidence suggests that the treatment achieves a relatively small reduction in the risk of a heart attack among people with less than very high levels of cholesterol.
  4. Not all the evidence is positive, as people with lower cholesterol levels who take the treatment have been found to develop an increased risk of some cancers.
  5. Originally, it was thought that the treatment worked by lowering the cholesterol level, but it is now believed that this effect alone is not enough to account for all the advantages that the treatment provides.

Answer: (C)
Explanation:
The best answer is the third option. This is because, if true, it would significantly undermine the specific claim that was the subject of the question. This means that patients with cholesterol levels that are not high will also experience a significant drop in their cholesterol levels. As a result, they would have a much lower risk of experiencing a vascular event.

Suggested GMAT Reading Comprehension Samples

Fees Structure

CategoryState
General15556

In case of any inaccuracy, Notify Us! 

Comments


No Comments To Show