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 has no effect on the health of schoolchildren in any district.
- The treated children would have earned less as adults had they not been dewormed.
- Attending school more days never improves a person's future earnings.
- Untreated children in nearby districts missed more school than the treated children.
Sign up free to see the explanation and track your rank →
More GMAT Verbal practice
- What logical role do the first two statements play?
- Which of the following is the conclusion?
- A gardener says: 'All roses in this garden require daily wat… — What is the role of the st
- What is the conclusion?
- What is the conclusion?
- Which statement is the conclusion?
- What is the conclusion?
- What logical role does the first sentence play in the researcher's argument?