Find all School-related info fast with the new School-Specific MBA Forum

It is currently 23 Aug 2014, 09:30

Close

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
Your Progress

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

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Public health advocate: Generally over the past 30 years in

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 01 Aug 2008
Posts: 118
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 16 [0], given: 2

Public health advocate: Generally over the past 30 years in [#permalink] New post 28 May 2009, 22:19
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions
Public health advocate: Generally over the past 30 years in the United States, it is true that medications that undergo the extensive FDA Phase III clinical safety testing are much safer than less-researched drugs. It is also true that whenever such trials are conducted, fewer people have experienced unexpected harmful side effects, thus reducing public health risks. However, eliminating the requirement that even FDA-tested medications continue to include extensive warnings about individual risk factors would almost certainly harm rather than help public health. Consumers would tend to rely on the FDA’s general certification of safety, and if no longer encouraged to read about individual risks and drug interactions, many patients would suffer serious adverse reactions.

The two bolded statements serve what purpose in the context of the public health advocate’s argument?

*
A.

The first is a general pattern that the advocate accepts as true; the second is said to be a natural consequence that must follow if the general pattern applies.

*
B.

The first is a causal relationship that the advocate believes will happen again in the case at issue; the second admits a situation in which the relationship would not hold.

*
C.

The first describes a cause and effect relationship that the advocate believes will not hold in the case at issue; the second suggests a consideration that supports that belief.

*
D.

The first is proof that the advocate uses to support a prediction; the second states that prediction.

*
E.

The first acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the stance that the advocate supports; the second is that stance.

Pls help
_________________

==============================================
Do not answer without sharing the reasoning behind ur choice
-----------------------------------------------------------
Working on my weakness : GMAT Verbal
------------------------------------------------------------
Ask:
Why, What, How, When, Where, Who
==============================================

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 27 May 2009
Posts: 42
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 3

Re: Public health advocate [#permalink] New post 29 May 2009, 00:04
A: It says 'the second is said to be a natural consequence that must follow if the general pattern applies.' which is not true.
D: The first is proof that the advocate uses to support a prediction; the second states that prediction.' the second is against what's mentioned in first
E:'The first acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the stance that the advocate supports; the second is that stance.' I think the first is not against the stance that the advocate supports.
B:'The first is a causal relationship that the advocate believes will happen again in the case at issue; the second admits a situation in which the relationship would not hold.'
It's nowhere mentioned that the advocate believes this will happen again in the case at issue .
C:'The first describes a cause and effect relationship that the advocate believes will not hold in the case at issue; the second suggests a consideration that supports that belief.' Fits the bill.
Current Student
avatar
Joined: 13 Jan 2009
Posts: 374
Location: India
Followers: 18

Kudos [?]: 55 [0], given: 1

GMAT Tests User
Re: Public health advocate [#permalink] New post 29 May 2009, 15:57
First I identified that first part is causal relationship so I came down to B and C.
And out of B and C, C fits because B says it happens again, which does not hold true.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 15 May 2009
Posts: 172
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 16 [0], given: 3

Re: Public health advocate [#permalink] New post 29 May 2009, 21:45
mbaMission wrote:
Public health advocate: Generally over the past 30 years in the United States, it is true that medications that undergo the extensive FDA Phase III clinical safety testing are much safer than less-researched drugs. It is also true that whenever such trials are conducted, fewer people have experienced unexpected harmful side effects, thus reducing public health risks. However, eliminating the requirement that even FDA-tested medications continue to include extensive warnings about individual risk factors would almost certainly harm rather than help public health. Consumers would tend to rely on the FDA’s general certification of safety, and if no longer encouraged to read about individual risks and drug interactions, many patients would suffer serious adverse reactions.

The two bolded statements serve what purpose in the context of the public health advocate’s argument?

A.The first is a general pattern that the advocate accepts as true; the second is said to be a natural consequence that must follow if the general pattern applies.
B. The first is a causal relationship that the advocate believes will happen again in the case at issue; the second admits a situation in which the relationship would not hold.
C. The first describes a cause and effect relationship that the advocate believes will not hold in the case at issue; the second suggests a consideration that supports that belief.
D. The first is proof that the advocate uses to support a prediction; the second states that prediction.
E. The first acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the stance that the advocate supports; the second is that stance.


I think I would go with (E). The first gold portion seem to undermine the need for warnings - drugs are safer (hence acknowledgement of something against the conclusion); the second part is the conclusion (warnings are still necessary even though drugs are safer).

Is OA available?
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 30 Mar 2009
Posts: 258
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 64 [0], given: 1

GMAT Tests User
Re: Public health advocate [#permalink] New post 29 May 2009, 22:21
IMO B


Public health advocate: Generally over the past 30 years in the United States, it is true that medications that undergo the extensive FDA Phase III clinical safety testing are much safer than less-researched drugs. It is also true that whenever such trials are conducted, fewer people have experienced unexpected harmful side effects, thus reducing public health risks. However, eliminating the requirement that even FDA-tested medications continue to include extensive warnings about individual risk factors would almost certainly harm rather than help public health. Consumers would tend to rely on the FDA’s general certification of safety, and if no longer encouraged to read about individual risks and drug interactions, many patients would suffer serious adverse reactions.

The two bolded statements serve what purpose in the context of the public health advocate’s argument?

A.The first is a general pattern that the advocate accepts as true; the second is said to be a natural consequence that must follow if the general pattern applies -->1st: correct, 2nd: it's not a "must follow" -->wrong
B.The first is a causal relationship that the advocate believes will happen again in the case at issue; the second admits a situation in which the relationship would not hold -->1st true: (it will happen if nothing unusual occurs), 2nd true: it states a situation that when people are no longer encouraged to read the warning, the 1st will not happen --> the best
C.The first describes a cause and effect relationship that the advocate believes will not hold in the case at issue; the second suggests a consideration that supports that belief -->1st: no info stated that the advocates believes it will not happen -->wrong
D.The first is proof that the advocate uses to support a prediction; the second states that prediction -->both are totally wrong
E.The first acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the stance that the advocate supports; the second is that stance -->1st: does not weaken any stance of the author, it is weakened by another situation --> wrong
Current Student
avatar
Joined: 18 May 2009
Posts: 15
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 1

Re: Public health advocate [#permalink] New post 30 May 2009, 07:07
betweeb B and C, i think C fits better here...

B says
Quote:
The first is a causal relationship that the advocate believes will happen again in the case at issue; the second admits a situation in which the relationship would not hold.


Advocate believes that this relationship will not hold if consumers are not encouraged to see the warning labels. In the context of the whole argument, he never believes that this relationship will again be valid in future, rather he predicts the opposite which is what C says

Quote:
The first describes a cause and effect relationship that the advocate believes will not hold in the case at issue; the second suggests a consideration that supports that belief.
Re: Public health advocate   [#permalink] 30 May 2009, 07:07
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
1 Some public health advocates have become concerned that goodyear2013 5 21 Mar 2014, 15:50
5 Experts publish their posts in the topic Public Health Official : After several years of vaccinating mikemcgarry 7 07 Jun 2013, 11:34
12 Experts publish their posts in the topic Public health advocate: It is generally true that medication BukrsGmat 13 12 Oct 2012, 20:49
Some public health advocates have become concerned that OptimusPrimea1 2 14 Aug 2011, 23:30
Over the past twenty-five years the introduction of labor- srijay007 5 02 Sep 2004, 23:15
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Public health advocate: Generally over the past 30 years in

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Privacy Policy| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group and phpBB SEO

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.