It is illegal to advertise prescription medications in : GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) - Page 2
Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases http://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 21 Jan 2017, 08:31

### GMAT Club Daily Prep

#### Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# It is illegal to advertise prescription medications in

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Manager
Status: Time to apply!
Joined: 24 Aug 2011
Posts: 220
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 600 Q48 V25
GMAT 2: 660 Q50 V29
GMAT 3: 690 Q49 V34
GPA: 3.2
WE: Engineering (Computer Software)
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 113 [0], given: 166

### Show Tags

19 Nov 2011, 05:26
+1 E
_________________

Didn't give up !!! Still Trying!!

Manager
Joined: 16 Oct 2011
Posts: 135
Location: United States
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 14 [0], given: 5

### Show Tags

09 Dec 2011, 01:13
cheryl3007 wrote:
Conclusion of the argument: inappropriate prescriptions would not become more common.
Main premise: But since physicians have the final say as to whether to prescribe a medication for a patient

For Evaluate the argument question, we should look for the answer choice with a question that:
- If we answer Yes to that question, the conclusion will be more/less likely to be true.
- If we answer No to that question, the conclusion will be less/more likely to be true.
Use this method to check the option E.

"Whether physicians would give in to a patient's demands for a prescription medication chosen by the patient when the one originally prescribed by the physician fails to perform as desired."
E contains a question: "Would physicians give in....?"
- If yes : the physicians give in --> the conclusion will be less likely to be true/ be weakened a little bit.
- If no: the physicians would not give in --> the conclusion will be more likely to be true/ be strengthened a little bit.
The validity of the conclusion changes when we get different answers to the question --> That is the question we need to evaluate the argument. --> E is the answer.

IMHO, the key is C!

C,D,E end up being eligible contenders, I would say!

E=> Physicians giving in to patients' demands if the physician's original prescription fails - Scenario based... Not general!
D=> Important source of info... True, Valid to evaluate the need for advertising, but, I reckon, we are looking to evaluate the objections
C=> Premise clearly says - Doctor has the ultimate authority to finalize on the medication, despite the patient's whatever comprehension of the adv.
Hence, doctors will not have to get influenced by the ads, if they, then it calls for a serious objection => C verifies that!
BSchool Forum Moderator
Status: Flying over the cloud!
Joined: 16 Aug 2011
Posts: 912
Location: Viet Nam
GMAT Date: 06-06-2014
GPA: 3.07
Followers: 73

Kudos [?]: 602 [1] , given: 44

### Show Tags

10 Dec 2011, 01:47
1
KUDOS
E. Whether physicians would give in to a patient's demands for a prescription medication chosen by the patient when the one originally prescribed by the physician fails to perform as desired.

If the physicians would give in to a patient's demands for a prescription medication chosen by the patient when the one originally prescribed by the physician fails to perform as desired. => the prescription advertisement will become commonly. If not, the advertisement become ineffective.
_________________

Rules for posting in verbal gmat forum, read it before posting anything in verbal forum
Giving me + 1 kudos if my post is valuable with you

The more you like my post, the more you share to other's need

CR: Focus of the Week: Must be True Question

Manager
Joined: 16 Oct 2011
Posts: 135
Location: United States
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 14 [0], given: 5

### Show Tags

10 Dec 2011, 02:15
tuanquang269 wrote:
E. Whether physicians would give in to a patient's demands for a prescription medication chosen by the patient when the one originally prescribed by the physician fails to perform as desired.

If the physicians would give in to a patient's demands for a prescription medication chosen by the patient when the one originally prescribed by the physician fails to perform as desired. => the prescription advertisement will become commonly. If not, the advertisement become ineffective.

Valid !
Suddenly E seems obvious !

Valuable => Kudos!
Director
Joined: 28 Jul 2011
Posts: 563
Location: United States
GPA: 3.86
WE: Accounting (Commercial Banking)
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 211 [0], given: 16

### Show Tags

12 Dec 2011, 05:11
cheryl3007 wrote:
Conclusion of the argument: inappropriate prescriptions would not become more common.
Main premise: But since physicians have the final say as to whether to prescribe a medication for a patient

For Evaluate the argument question, we should look for the answer choice with a question that:
- If we answer Yes to that question, the conclusion will be more/less likely to be true.
- If we answer No to that question, the conclusion will be less/more likely to be true.
Use this method to check the option E.

"Whether physicians would give in to a patient's demands for a prescription medication chosen by the patient when the one originally prescribed by the physician fails to perform as desired."
E contains a question: "Would physicians give in....?"
- If yes : the physicians give in --> the conclusion will be less likely to be true/ be weakened a little bit.
- If no: the physicians would not give in --> the conclusion will be more likely to be true/ be strengthened a little bit.
The validity of the conclusion changes when we get different answers to the question --> That is the question we need to evaluate the argument. --> E is the answer.

This approach works even for C

If same information is provided then the answer is Yes ----->strengthens
If ame information not provided Then answer is no No-------->weakens

_________________

Manager
Joined: 16 Oct 2011
Posts: 135
Location: United States
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 14 [1] , given: 5

### Show Tags

12 Dec 2011, 06:48
1
KUDOS
kotela wrote:
cheryl3007 wrote:
Conclusion of the argument: inappropriate prescriptions would not become more common.
Main premise: But since physicians have the final say as to whether to prescribe a medication for a patient

For Evaluate the argument question, we should look for the answer choice with a question that:
- If we answer Yes to that question, the conclusion will be more/less likely to be true.
- If we answer No to that question, the conclusion will be less/more likely to be true.
Use this method to check the option E.

"Whether physicians would give in to a patient's demands for a prescription medication chosen by the patient when the one originally prescribed by the physician fails to perform as desired."
E contains a question: "Would physicians give in....?"
- If yes : the physicians give in --> the conclusion will be less likely to be true/ be weakened a little bit.
- If no: the physicians would not give in --> the conclusion will be more likely to be true/ be strengthened a little bit.
The validity of the conclusion changes when we get different answers to the question --> That is the question we need to evaluate the argument. --> E is the answer.

This approach works even for C

If same information is provided then the answer is Yes ----->strengthens
If ame information not provided Then answer is no No-------->weakens

Hi kotela,

Now, I think, this has a kind of view, something like this, too.

C=> Ads directed to public provide same info to physicians also.
E=> Physicians would get influenced by patient's demands if their originally recommended prescription fails.

Now, look at the argument. It clearly says - "general population lacks the specialized knowledge to evaluate such advertisements" and "physicians have the final say as to whether to prescribe a medication for a patient".

It simply talks about the inability/inefficiency of the patients to comprehend ads, and not the ads that try to influence the patients directly .Hence, as in C, it is not relevant for uniformity of info to both patients & physicians, since ads are not to be blamed. It is only the patients who get wrong in understanding. Clearly, E is an example to show whether physicians are capable enough to get influenced by patients' demands, "once they get failed".

Also, I'm not very much with this negation approach, even in case of assumptions. It works, but I think u can get mislead!

Thanks!
Manager
Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Posts: 65
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 8

### Show Tags

12 Dec 2011, 08:06
Thanks for the explanation Cheryl3007
Senior Manager
Joined: 13 Aug 2010
Posts: 314
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 22 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

12 Dec 2011, 20:35
+1 for E
Director
Joined: 28 Jul 2011
Posts: 563
Location: United States
GPA: 3.86
WE: Accounting (Commercial Banking)
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 211 [0], given: 16

### Show Tags

15 Dec 2011, 18:05
raghupara wrote:
kotela wrote:
cheryl3007 wrote:
Conclusion of the argument: inappropriate prescriptions would not become more common.
Main premise: But since physicians have the final say as to whether to prescribe a medication for a patient

For Evaluate the argument question, we should look for the answer choice with a question that:
- If we answer Yes to that question, the conclusion will be more/less likely to be true.
- If we answer No to that question, the conclusion will be less/more likely to be true.
Use this method to check the option E.

"Whether physicians would give in to a patient's demands for a prescription medication chosen by the patient when the one originally prescribed by the physician fails to perform as desired."
E contains a question: "Would physicians give in....?"
- If yes : the physicians give in --> the conclusion will be less likely to be true/ be weakened a little bit.
- If no: the physicians would not give in --> the conclusion will be more likely to be true/ be strengthened a little bit.
The validity of the conclusion changes when we get different answers to the question --> That is the question we need to evaluate the argument. --> E is the answer.

This approach works even for C

If same information is provided then the answer is Yes ----->strengthens
If ame information not provided Then answer is no No-------->weakens

Hi kotela,

Now, I think, this has a kind of view, something like this, too.

C=> Ads directed to public provide same info to physicians also.
E=> Physicians would get influenced by patient's demands if their originally recommended prescription fails.

Now, look at the argument. It clearly says - "general population lacks the specialized knowledge to evaluate such advertisements" and "physicians have the final say as to whether to prescribe a medication for a patient".

It simply talks about the inability/inefficiency of the patients to comprehend ads, and not the ads that try to influence the patients directly .Hence, as in C, it is not relevant for uniformity of info to both patients & physicians, since ads are not to be blamed. It is only the patients who get wrong in understanding. Clearly, E is an example to show whether physicians are capable enough to get influenced by patients' demands, "once they get failed".

Also, I'm not very much with this negation approach, even in case of assumptions. It works, but I think u can get mislead!

Thanks!

Thanks man...Got it

+1 Kudos for you
_________________

Manager
Joined: 07 Aug 2011
Posts: 186
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 690 Q48 V37
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 23 [0], given: 6

### Show Tags

26 Dec 2011, 10:53
E just its closest to be right
Senior Manager
Joined: 12 Oct 2011
Posts: 272
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 47 [0], given: 110

### Show Tags

03 Jan 2012, 10:57
All options look weird but I think E looks the best here.
_________________

Consider KUDOS if you feel the effort's worth it

Senior Manager
Joined: 15 Sep 2011
Posts: 365
Location: United States
WE: Corporate Finance (Manufacturing)
Followers: 6

Kudos [?]: 299 [0], given: 45

### Show Tags

06 Feb 2014, 04:24
Here's an evaluate question.
Conclusion: Bust since physicians have the final say as to whether to prescribe a medication for a patient, inappropriate prescriptions would not become more common.

A. Whether advertising for prescription medications might alert patients to the existence of effective treatments for minor ailments that they had previously thought to be untreatable
Effective treatments are never inappropriate, none-whatsoever.

B. Whether some people might go to a physcian for no reason other than ask for a particular medication they have seen advertised Physicians have the final say, so nothing can be determined here.

C. Whether the proposed law requires prescription-medication advertisements directed to the general public to provide the same information as do advertisements directed to physicians. Physicians have the final say, so nothing can be determined here too.

D. Whether advertisements for prescription medications are currently an important source of information about newly available medications for physicians Whether advertisements are an important source of information does not establish that inappropriate prescriptions would not become more common.

E. Whether physicians would give in to a patient's demands for a prescription medication chosen by the patient when the one originally prescribed by the physician fails to perform as desired. If the physician gave into a patient's demands, then inappropriate prescriptions would become more common; if the physician were not to give into a patient's demands, then inappropriate prescriptions would not become more common.
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10536
Followers: 919

Kudos [?]: 203 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

07 Apr 2015, 22:56
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10536
Followers: 919

Kudos [?]: 203 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

18 May 2016, 07:48
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
Re: It is illegal to advertise prescription medications in   [#permalink] 18 May 2016, 07:48

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 34 posts ]

Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
2 It is illegal to advertise prescription medications in Hedland 2 04 Jun 2015, 03:46
4 Advanced CR: It is illegal to advertise prescription medications 3 12 May 2015, 14:54
4 Advertisement: Of the many over-the-counter medications 15 22 Jan 2013, 17:48
3 It is illegal to advertise prescription medications in 3 16 Sep 2012, 13:21
1 It is illegal to advertise prescription medications in 6 08 Sep 2009, 11:16
Display posts from previous: Sort by