medium · GMAT Verbal
In districts where intestinal worms are common, a charity dewormed all schoolchildren for two years. Treated children missed fewer school days than before. Yet a decade later, their adult earnings were no higher than those of children in nearby untreated districts.
Which of the following is most strongly supported by the information above?
- Reduced school absence among the treated children did not translate into measurably higher adult earnings.
- Deworming treatment has no effect at all on the health of schoolchildren in any district whatsoever.
- The treated children would have earned even less money as adults had they never been dewormed at all.
- Attending school for more days never improves a person's future adult earnings in any setting whatsoever.
- Untreated children in the nearby districts missed considerably more days of school than the treated children did.
Sign up free to see the explanation and track your rank →
More GMAT Verbal practice
- A gardener says: 'All roses in this garden require daily wat… — What is the role of the st
- What is the conclusion?
- Which of the following is the conclusion?
- What logical role do the first two statements play?
- What is the conclusion?
- What logical role does the first sentence play in the researcher's argument?
- Which statement is the conclusion?
- Which of the following, if true, most undermines the agency's claim?