kntombat wrote:
AndrewN, I would love your take on this question, I narrowed it down to B,D and E, eliminated E, spent some time dilly dallying over B and D and finally chose D and turns out I am wrong.
Hello,
kntombat. The goal here is to
most logically address why a new drug, despite certain
side effects that were
much more frequent than those of a drug currently prescribed, would be
clearly preferable. I do not prefer to pre-think possibilities when answers are there for me to lean on, so I will jump right in.
NandishSS wrote:
Which of the following most logically completes the argument?
A new drug, taken twice daily for one month, is an effective treatment for a certain disease. The drug now most commonly prescribed for the disease occasionally has serious side effects such as seizures; in field tests, the new drug’s side effects, though no worse than mild nausea, turned out to be much more frequent. Nevertheless, the new drug is clearly preferable as a treatment, since _____.
A) people who experience nausea are prone to discontinue use of the new drug prematurely
I spent the longest on this answer, believe it or not, perhaps because it was the first one, and my mind needed to warm up to the task. (Even so, I spent just over a minute and a half on the question altogether, so I was not upset with myself or anything.) But if people would more likely stop using the new drug to treat this ailment, then we would have a compelling reason to stick with the old treatment instead. This is the opposite of what we want.
Red light.
Quote:
B) It is possible that the drug now most commonly prescribed has side effects that have not yet been attributed to it
This is similar to a
some answer.
It is possible, really? Then it is just as likely that anything that follows the first
that above is
not true of the
drug now most commonly prescribed. We have no context to lean on in the passage for guidance. We cannot (or should not) rely on hearsay, more or less, to buttress this argument.
Red light.
Quote:
C) other drugs for the disease have typically been prescribed only for patients allergic to the most commonly prescribed drug
So what? We are not interested in
other drugs, only in the new one versus the currently prescribed one. We cannot comment on the efficacy of these other drugs, and we cannot create any meaningful link between this information and the new drug under consideration.
Red light.
Quote:
D) people who have received effective treatment for disease do not generally contract the disease again
This applies equally to the old drug and the new drug. We are not addressing the real issue here,
why the new drug would be
clearly preferable. Be careful not to be misled by blanket statements. If the passage provided information on how long
each treatment took, and the one currently in use took much longer, then yes, perhaps the new drug would be preferable, but the passage says nothing to this effect.
Red light.
Quote:
E) there is a nonprescription medication that when taken with the new drug prevents the onset of nausea
Not only does this
medication combat the drawback of the new drug, it is also easy to obtain, since a prescription is not even required. This information definitely tilts the balance in favor of the new drug, just what we want.
Green light.
I hope that helps. Thank you for thinking to ask me about this one.
- Andrew
_________________
I am no longer contributing to GMAT Club. Please request an active Expert or a peer review if you have questions.