Public health advocate: Generally over the past 30 years in : GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR)
Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases http://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 20 Jan 2017, 02:39

### 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

# Public health advocate: Generally over the past 30 years in

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 01 Aug 2008
Posts: 118
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 130 [0], given: 2

### Show Tags

28 May 2009, 22:19
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

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
------------------------------------------------------------
Why, What, How, When, Where, Who
==============================================

If you have any questions
New!
Intern
Joined: 27 May 2009
Posts: 42
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 131 [0], given: 3

### Show Tags

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
Joined: 13 Jan 2009
Posts: 372
Location: India
Followers: 20

Kudos [?]: 120 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

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
Joined: 15 May 2009
Posts: 172
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 26 [0], given: 3

### Show Tags

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
Joined: 30 Mar 2009
Posts: 256
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 143 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

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
Intern
Joined: 18 May 2009
Posts: 15
Followers: 0

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

### Show Tags

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.
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
5 #Top150 CR: Public health advocate: It is generally true that 4 12 Oct 2015, 06:30
1 Over the past ten years 3 04 Jun 2015, 02:18
5 Some public health advocates have become concerned that 11 21 Mar 2014, 15:50
42 Public health advocate: It is generally true that medication 17 12 Oct 2012, 20:49
9 Some public health advocates have become concerned that 8 14 Aug 2011, 23:30
Display posts from previous: Sort by