GMAT Section 3: Verbal Ability GMAT SECTION 3: VERBAL ABILITY Exam Questions in PDF

An Australian group named Action Council on Smoking and Health (ACSH) has recently lobbied to make warnings on cigarette packets more graphic. The council proposed that striking visual photos of diseased organs should be put on at least 50% of outside packaging, in conjunction with health warnings outlining smoking hazards enumerated in a separate leaflet placed inside the cigarette packet. The ACSH claim that bland and ineffectual warnings like "Smoking is a health hazard" currently found on cigarette packets are not nearly sufficient.
Substituting those inadequate admonitions with explicit photos will provide a powerful visual stimulus to help smokers relinquish their habit. The current cautions on cigarette packets have little or no impact on smokers who have grown immune to the warnings that focus on abstract tobacco related risks and illnesses from which smokers can easily disassociate themselves. The proposed new tactics would concentrate on the perspective of the individual smoker through a demonstration of what is occurring in his body each time he reaches for a cigarette, rather than a generic cautionary word of advise.
The ACSH cited the results of recent studies conducted by psychologists at McKean University confirming that evidence related to one's own experience is more effective at influencing future behavior than a presentation of facts and figures. A further rationale for the addition of pictures to cigarette packages is the finding that smokers handle their packets 20-30 times a day, on average, thus, if graphic pictures on cigarette packets were introduced, smoker would have 20-30 chances to face the harsh reality of what damage they are doing to themselves each time they light up.
Even more essential than the pictures on the outside label, ACSH strongly advocate including warnings and helpful information in a leaflet inserted into the packet of cigarettes. Even an analgesic, ACSH adds, found in every bathroom cabinet has all possible side effects enumerated in the insert. How much more imperative is it then when the substance in question is tobacco, a dried weed that contains highly noxious nicotine that society still accepts even though it kills one of every two of its users.
Fundamentally, what is at stake here is consumer rights. Smokers should know what substances they are inhaling, and what damage they are inflicting to their bodies, though surprisingly, even today, many do not. For this reason alone, the recommendation for more graphic pictures and warnings on cigarette packets, which many seem excessive, is being seriously considered.

The author cites studies conducted at McKean University to account for why

An Australian group named Action Council on Smoking and Health (ACSH) has recently lobbied to make warnings on cigarette packets more graphic. The council proposed that striking visual photos of diseased organs should be put on at least 50% of outside packaging, in conjunction with health warnings outlining smoking hazards enumerated in a separate leaflet placed inside the cigarette packet. The ACSH claim that bland and ineffectual warnings like "Smoking is a health hazard" currently found on cigarette packets are not nearly sufficient.
Substituting those inadequate admonitions with explicit photos will provide a powerful visual stimulus to help smokers relinquish their habit. The current cautions on cigarette packets have little or no impact on smokers who have grown immune to the warnings that focus on abstract tobacco related risks and illnesses from which smokers can easily disassociate themselves. The proposed new tactics would concentrate on the perspective of the individual smoker through a demonstration of what is occurring in his body each time he reaches for a cigarette, rather than a generic cautionary word of advise.
The ACSH cited the results of recent studies conducted by psychologists at McKean University confirming that evidence related to one's own experience is more effective at influencing future behavior than a presentation of facts and figures. A further rationale for the addition of pictures to cigarette packages is the finding that smokers handle their packets 20-30 times a day, on average, thus, if graphic pictures on cigarette packets were introduced, smoker would have 20-30 chances to face the harsh reality of what damage they are doing to themselves each time they light up.
Even more essential than the pictures on the outside label, ACSH strongly advocate including warnings and helpful information in a leaflet inserted into the packet of cigarettes. Even an analgesic, ACSH adds, found in every bathroom cabinet has all possible side effects enumerated in the insert. How much more imperative is it then when the substance in question is tobacco, a dried weed that contains highly noxious nicotine that society still accepts even though it kills one of every two of its users.
Fundamentally, what is at stake here is consumer rights. Smokers should know what substances they are inhaling, and what damage they are inflicting to their bodies, though surprisingly, even today, many do not. For this reason alone, the recommendation for more graphic pictures and warnings on cigarette packets, which many seem excessive, is being seriously considered.

Which of the following, if true, would be most useful in supporting the claims made by the ACSH?

An Australian group named Action Council on Smoking and Health (ACSH) has recently lobbied to make warnings on cigarette packets more graphic. The council proposed that striking visual photos of diseased organs should be put on at least 50% of outside packaging, in conjunction with health warnings outlining smoking hazards enumerated in a separate leaflet placed inside the cigarette packet. The ACSH claim that bland and ineffectual warnings like "Smoking is a health hazard" currently found on cigarette packets are not nearly sufficient.
Substituting those inadequate admonitions with explicit photos will provide a powerful visual stimulus to help smokers relinquish their habit. The current cautions on cigarette packets have little or no impact on smokers who have grown immune to the warnings that focus on abstract tobacco related risks and illnesses from which smokers can easily disassociate themselves. The proposed new tactics would concentrate on the perspective of the individual smoker through a demonstration of what is occurring in his body each time he reaches for a cigarette, rather than a generic cautionary word of advise.
The ACSH cited the results of recent studies conducted by psychologists at McKean University confirming that evidence related to one's own experience is more effective at influencing future behavior than a presentation of facts and figures. A further rationale for the addition of pictures to cigarette packages is the finding that smokers handle their packets 20-30 times a day, on average, thus, if graphic pictures on cigarette packets were introduced, smoker would have 20-30 chances to face the harsh reality of what damage they are doing to themselves each time they light up.
Even more essential than the pictures on the outside label, ACSH strongly advocate including warnings and helpful information in a leaflet inserted into the packet of cigarettes. Even an analgesic, ACSH adds, found in every bathroom cabinet has all possible side effects enumerated in the insert. How much more imperative is it then when the substance in question is tobacco, a dried weed that contains highly noxious nicotine that society still accepts even though it kills one of every two of its users.
Fundamentally, what is at stake here is consumer rights. Smokers should know what substances they are inhaling, and what damage they are inflicting to their bodies, though surprisingly, even today, many do not. For this reason alone, the recommendation for more graphic pictures and warnings on cigarette packets, which many seem excessive, is being seriously considered.

The passage does NOT state which of the following about smoking warnings.

Gene therapy offers a new treatment paradigm for curing human disease. Rather than altering the disease phenotype by using agents that interact with gene products, or are themselves gene products, gene therapy can theoretically modify specific genes resulting in disease cure following a single administration. Initially gene therapy was envisioned for the treatment of genetic disorders, but is currently being studied for use with a wide range of diseases, including cancer, peripheral vascular disease, arthritis, Neurodegenerative disorders and other acquired diseases.
Certain key elements are required for a successful gene therapy strategy. The most elementary of these is that the relevant gene be identified and cloned. Upon completion of the Human Genome Project, gene availability will be unlimited. Once identified and cloned, the next consideration must be expression of the gene. questions pertaining to the efficiency of gene transfer and gene expression remain at the forefront of gene therapy research, with current debates revolving around the transfer of desired genes to appropriate cells, and then to obtaining sufficient levels of expression for disease treatment. With luck, future research on gene transfer and tissue-specific gene expression will resolve these issues for the majority of gene therapy protocols.
Other important considerations for a gene therapy strategy include a sufficient understanding of the pathogenesis of the targeted disorder, potential side effects of the gene therapy treatment, and a more in depth understanding of the target cells which are to receive gene therapy.
Gene transfer vector is the mechanism by which the gene is transferred into a cell. Currently there are at least 150 clinical gene therapy protocols worldwide. Since the approval process for these protocols is not as public outside the U.S., it is difficult to ascertain the exact number of worldwide protocols. As of December 1995, 1024 patients had been treated with either a gene transfer or gene therapy protocol. Much controversy exists regarding how many of these patients have benefited from their gene therapy, and no one has yet been cured. Public controversy in the field of human gene therapy is driven by several factors. Ordinary citizens as well as scientists easily understand the enormous potential of gene therapy, but the former may not appreciate all the pitfalls and uncertainly that lie in the immediate future. The financial interests of biotechnology firms and, some have asserted the career interests of some gene therapists have encouraged extravagant, or at least verily optimistic public statements about contemporary gene therapy. In spite of the proliferation of protocols, the actual number of patients treated remains small, and only one genuinely controlled study of human gene therapy has been published as of this date.

In the passage, the author anticipates which of the following as a possible obstacle to the introduction of gene therapy to mainstream medicine?

Gene therapy offers a new treatment paradigm for curing human disease. Rather than altering the disease phenotype by using agents that interact with gene products, or are themselves gene products, gene therapy can theoretically modify specific genes resulting in disease cure following a single administration. Initially gene therapy was envisioned for the treatment of genetic disorders, but is currently being studied for use with a wide range of diseases, including cancer, peripheral vascular disease, arthritis, Neurodegenerative disorders and other acquired diseases.
Certain key elements are required for a successful gene therapy strategy. The most elementary of these is that the relevant gene be identified and cloned. Upon completion of the Human Genome Project, gene availability will be unlimited. Once identified and cloned, the next consideration must be expression of the gene. questions pertaining to the efficiency of gene transfer and gene expression remain at the forefront of gene therapy research, with current debates revolving around the transfer of desired genes to appropriate cells, and then to obtaining sufficient levels of expression for disease treatment. With luck, future research on gene transfer and tissue-specific gene expression will resolve these issues for the majority of gene therapy protocols.
Other important considerations for a gene therapy strategy include a sufficient understanding of the pathogenesis of the targeted disorder, potential side effects of the gene therapy treatment, and a more in depth understanding of the target cells which are to receive gene therapy.
Gene transfer vector is the mechanism by which the gene is transferred into a cell. Currently there are at least 150 clinical gene therapy protocols worldwide. Since the approval process for these protocols is not as public outside the U.S., it is difficult to ascertain the exact number of worldwide protocols. As of December 1995, 1024 patients had been treated with either a gene transfer or gene therapy protocol. Much controversy exists regarding how many of these patients have benefited from their gene therapy, and no one has yet been cured. Public controversy in the field of human gene therapy is driven by several factors. Ordinary citizens as well as scientists easily understand the enormous potential of gene therapy, but the former may not appreciate all the pitfalls and uncertainly that lie in the immediate future. The financial interests of biotechnology firms and, some have asserted the career interests of some gene therapists have encouraged extravagant, or at least verily optimistic public statements about contemporary gene therapy. In spite of the proliferation of protocols, the actual number of patients treated remains small, and only one genuinely controlled study of human gene therapy has been published as of this date

All of the following are mentioned in the passage as elements that are required for a successful gene therapy strategy EXCEPT: