|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
Manager
Status: Trying to get 720+ - DIDN'T GIVE UP !!
Joined: 24 Aug 2011
Posts: 184
Location: India
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Finance
GMAT 1: 600 Q48 V25
GMAT 2: 660 Q50 V29
WE: Engineering (Computer Software)
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
13
[0], given: 95
|
Re: It is illegal to advertise prescription medications in [#permalink]
 19 Nov 2011, 06:26
+1 E
_________________
Didn't give up !!! Still Trying!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 16 Oct 2011
Posts: 130
Location: United States
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
9
[0], given: 5
|
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 objectionsC=> 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!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Verbal GMAT Forum Moderator
Status: Flying over the cloud!
Joined: 17 Aug 2011
Posts: 787
Location: Viet Nam
Concentration: International Business, Finance
GPA: 3.07
Followers: 18
Kudos [?]:
83
[1] , given: 35
|
Re: It is illegal to advertise prescription medications in [#permalink]
10 Dec 2011, 02:47
1
This post received
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 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 16 Oct 2011
Posts: 130
Location: United States
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
9
[0], given: 5
|
Re: It is illegal to advertise prescription medications in [#permalink]
10 Dec 2011, 03:15
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 ! Ad's become ineffective, then! Suddenly E seems obvious ! Valuable => Kudos!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 28 Jul 2011
Posts: 593
Location: United States
Concentration: International Business, General Management
GPA: 3.86
WE: Accounting (Commercial Banking)
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
26
[0], given: 16
|
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 Can anyone please justify.........
_________________
+1 Kudos If found helpful..
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 16 Oct 2011
Posts: 130
Location: United States
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
9
[1] , given: 5
|
1
This post received
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 Can anyone please justify......... 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! Kudos, if helpful!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Posts: 67
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
1
[0], given: 8
|
Re: It is illegal to advertise prescription medications in [#permalink]
12 Dec 2011, 09:06
Thanks for the explanation Cheryl3007
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 13 Aug 2010
Posts: 318
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
4
[0], given: 1
|
Re: It is illegal to advertise prescription medications in [#permalink]
12 Dec 2011, 21:35
+1 for E
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 28 Jul 2011
Posts: 593
Location: United States
Concentration: International Business, General Management
GPA: 3.86
WE: Accounting (Commercial Banking)
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
26
[0], given: 16
|
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 Can anyone please justify......... 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! Kudos, if helpful! Thanks man...Got it +1 Kudos for you
_________________
+1 Kudos If found helpful..
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 07 Aug 2011
Posts: 186
Location: United States
Concentration: Technology, International Business
GMAT 1: 690 Q48 V37
Followers: 3
Kudos [?]:
20
[0], given: 6
|
Re: It is illegal to advertise prescription medications in [#permalink]
26 Dec 2011, 11:53
E just its closest to be right
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 12 Oct 2011
Posts: 283
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
13
[0], given: 110
|
Re: It is illegal to advertise prescription medications in [#permalink]
03 Jan 2012, 11:57
All options look weird but I think E looks the best here.
_________________
Consider KUDOS if you feel the effort's worth it
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: It is illegal to advertise prescription medications in
[#permalink]
03 Jan 2012, 11:57
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Vercules, Legendaddy, noboru, Marcab, metallicafan, rajeevrks27, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, souvik101990, doe007, MacFauz, PTK, carcass, kissthegmat, Narenn
|
close
