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

It is currently 24 Oct 2014, 02:06

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: It is generally true that medication

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:
1 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 27 Jul 2011
Posts: 185
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 78 [1] , given: 103

Public health advocate: It is generally true that medication [#permalink] New post 12 Oct 2012, 20:49
1
This post received
KUDOS
3
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  95% (hard)

Question Stats:

33% (03:24) correct 67% (02:03) wrong based on 414 sessions

Public health advocate:
It is generally 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.

Need to know your approach how u decided the ans.
OA after some discussion.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

_________________

If u can't jump the 700 wall , drill a big hole and cross it .. I can and I WILL DO IT ...need some encouragement and inspirations from U ALL


Last edited by BukrsGmat on 13 Oct 2012, 10:50, edited 1 time in total.
1 KUDOS received
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar
Joined: 02 Jul 2012
Posts: 1227
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy
GMAT 1: 740 Q49 V42
GPA: 3.8
WE: Engineering (Energy and Utilities)
Followers: 67

Kudos [?]: 717 [1] , given: 116

Premium Member
Re: Bold face cr- It is generally true that medications that [#permalink] New post 12 Oct 2012, 21:24
1
This post received
KUDOS
sujit2k7 wrote:
Question

Public health advocate:
It is generally 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. The second is not given as a natural consequence to the first.[

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. The author does not beleive that the causal realtionship in the first statement will happen again. Infact he says that it might lead to serious adverse reactions.

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. Seems like a good contestant. The first statement says tested drugs lead to lesser side effects. The seconds explains a situation where that might not be the case. But the second is the authors belief rather than a consideration to support the belief. So lets hold this with some skepticism

D The first is proof that the advocate uses to support a prediction; the second states that prediction. The first statement is not a proof of anything. It is only a general observance.

E The first acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the stance that the advocate supports; the second is that stance. Between C and this option, this option seems like the better choice. AnswerNeed to know your approach how u decided the ans.
OA after some discussion.



Answer is E
_________________

Did you find this post helpful?... Please let me know through the Kudos button.

Thanks To The Almighty - My GMAT Debrief

GMAT Reading Comprehension: 7 Most Common Passage Types

1 KUDOS received
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 22 Dec 2011
Posts: 299
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 103 [1] , given: 32

Re: Bold face cr- It is generally true that medications that [#permalink] New post 13 Oct 2012, 01:13
1
This post received
KUDOS
sujit2k7 wrote:
Question

Public health advocate:
It is generally 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.

Need to know your approach how u decided the ans.
OA after some discussion.


Hi...
The con of the argument is below
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.

And the author uses the 2nd bold face to support this view / belief / prediction.
if no longer encouraged to read about individual risks and drug interactions, many patients would suffer serious adverse reactions.

1st bold face, below, is a fact that the author acknowledges to be true, but doesn't use this to support his conclusion. (can be seen by the use of key word "however" )
It is also true that whenever such trials are conducted, fewer people have experienced unexpected harmful side effects, thus reducing public health risks.

So in shot is general statement of truth and 2 is also a fact that he uses to supprort his view...!

Now to the answer choices.

D&E says 2nd is conclusion .... SO WRONG
In A the 1st part is correct, however the 2nd part is NOT A consequence of 1st bold. - Adios A
In B 1st part is the a problem here, the author believes that removing Warning would result in danger hence he believes the causality will be affected if we remove the warnings - Bye bye B

C, the answer without any doubt,
Expert Post
3 KUDOS received
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar
Joined: 01 Sep 2010
Posts: 2441
Followers: 312

Kudos [?]: 2621 [3] , given: 696

Re: Bold face cr- It is generally true that medications that [#permalink] New post 13 Oct 2012, 04:15
3
This post received
KUDOS
Expert's post
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
A good challenging question. This is one of the question during the test makes you completely sweaty

here is how I attack always such questions

The first is what: for sure not the conclusion so is or a Premise or X (something else) here is a premise in favour of the conclusion (notice is also true just before).

the second: is nont the conclusion but in somehow support the conclusion though i'm not quite sure if support completely the conclusion of the argument Consumers would tend to rely on the FDA’s general certification of safety............it seem something in the middle (notice IF) but for sure not against

Ok after this brief brainstorming in my mind I need a: P and a P (both in somehow are in favour of the conclusion but all things are fuzzy, unclear, I'm not pretty sure -------> this is what I would do during the test)

The choice is narrowed to C and E

E The first acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the stance that the advocate supports based on the first bold AND also on the whole context i do not see anything about a position. Here the advocate describe something that could happens if something else is not conducted

the second is that stance.

I do not see here a stance but instead a consideration (notice IF at the beginning of the bold)

For me is C therefore this one wins
_________________

COLLECTION OF QUESTIONS
Quant: 1. Bunuel Signature Collection - The Next Generation 2. Bunuel Signature Collection ALL-IN-ONE WITH SOLUTIONS 3. Veritas Prep Blog PDF Version
Verbal:1. Best EXTERNAL resources to tackle the GMAT Verbal Section 2. e-GMAT's ALL CR topics-Consolidated 3. New Critical Reasoning question bank by carcass 4. Meaning/Clarity SC Question Bank by Carcass_Souvik 5. e-GMAT's ALL SC topics-Consolidated-2nd Edition 6. The best reading to improve Reading Comprehension 7.Verbal question bank and Directories


Last edited by carcass on 13 Oct 2012, 10:54, edited 1 time in total.
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar
Joined: 02 Jul 2012
Posts: 1227
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy
GMAT 1: 740 Q49 V42
GPA: 3.8
WE: Engineering (Energy and Utilities)
Followers: 67

Kudos [?]: 717 [0], given: 116

Premium Member
Re: Bold face cr- It is generally true that medications that [#permalink] New post 13 Oct 2012, 05:13
But the word "consideration" troubles me in option C. I believe that "consideration" in this case is a synonym with "fact". However the second statement does not seem like a fact. Rather, it sounds like an opinion. Please correct me if i'm wrong.
_________________

Did you find this post helpful?... Please let me know through the Kudos button.

Thanks To The Almighty - My GMAT Debrief

GMAT Reading Comprehension: 7 Most Common Passage Types

Expert Post
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar
Joined: 01 Sep 2010
Posts: 2441
Followers: 312

Kudos [?]: 2621 [0], given: 696

Re: Bold face cr- It is generally true that medications that [#permalink] New post 13 Oct 2012, 06:11
Expert's post
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
First of all a consideration is not a fact, is what i Think about a situation (could be or not to be true). A fact is a fact what happens, a scenario ( a thief steal my ipod) evidence is stronger than fact ( I saw Mike steal my ipod: mike you are a thief)

In concrete what is the point of the whole situation: ok drugs tested are more safety than not tested. if FDA wants eliminate something at least, FDA should not eliminate something that helps people to understand the risk of drugs. Because if people do not inform theirself and rely their judgement only on FDA, and what about if FDA was wrong ??

This is something about the chain in this CR.

For me is C, maybe I'm wrong but am confident, otherwise I would learn something :)
_________________

COLLECTION OF QUESTIONS
Quant: 1. Bunuel Signature Collection - The Next Generation 2. Bunuel Signature Collection ALL-IN-ONE WITH SOLUTIONS 3. Veritas Prep Blog PDF Version
Verbal:1. Best EXTERNAL resources to tackle the GMAT Verbal Section 2. e-GMAT's ALL CR topics-Consolidated 3. New Critical Reasoning question bank by carcass 4. Meaning/Clarity SC Question Bank by Carcass_Souvik 5. e-GMAT's ALL SC topics-Consolidated-2nd Edition 6. The best reading to improve Reading Comprehension 7.Verbal question bank and Directories


Last edited by carcass on 13 Oct 2012, 10:57, edited 1 time in total.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2011
Posts: 135
Location: United States
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 12 [0], given: 5

Reviews Badge
Re: Bold face cr- It is generally true that medications that [#permalink] New post 13 Oct 2012, 06:39
sujit2k7 wrote:
Question

Public health advocate:
It is generally 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.

Need to know your approach how u decided the ans.
OA after some discussion.


Hi,

I am sorry if I am wrong, but I have a completely different choice here.

Kindly correct me experts.

The advocate says, it is true..... therefore he certainly feels that FDA standards are much safer than less-researched drugs on any day, but uses a however, just to warn that FDA is all fine, but if you don't encourage to read health risks, you make many patients suffer.

Hence I feel, it can be either A or B.
In A, the second half says - a natural consequence that must follow if the general pattern applies.... But it is more of an exception case that the advocate is discussing, that if something doesn't, something else won`t and it is a situation in which, the causal relationship accepted as true, would not hold.
I think B.
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar
Joined: 02 Jul 2012
Posts: 1227
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy
GMAT 1: 740 Q49 V42
GPA: 3.8
WE: Engineering (Energy and Utilities)
Followers: 67

Kudos [?]: 717 [0], given: 116

Premium Member
Re: Bold face cr- It is generally true that medications that [#permalink] New post 13 Oct 2012, 07:30
carcass wrote:
First of all a consideration is not a fact, is what i Think about a situation (could be or not to be true). A fact is a fact what happens, a scenario ( a thief steal my ipod) evidence is stronger than fact ( I saw Mike steal my ipod: mike you are a thief)

In concrete what is the point of the whole situation: ok drugs tested are more safety than not tested. if FDA wants eliminate something at least, FDA should not eliminate something that helps people to understand the risk of drugs. Because if people do not inform theirself and based only their judgement on FDA, and what about if FDA was wrong ??

This is something about the chain in this CR.

For me is C, maybe I'm wrong but am confident, otherwise I would learn something :)


Hmmm... My reasoning is that consideration means a fact that has to be taken into account before deciding on something. Anyway... The OA along with the OE would really be an eye opener.
_________________

Did you find this post helpful?... Please let me know through the Kudos button.

Thanks To The Almighty - My GMAT Debrief

GMAT Reading Comprehension: 7 Most Common Passage Types

Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 27 Jul 2011
Posts: 185
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 78 [0], given: 103

Re: Bold face cr- It is generally true that medications that [#permalink] New post 13 Oct 2012, 10:50
Good discussion ..
And the OA: C
Kudos to C
Official explanation:
This is the credited response. Phrase #1 gives a generally true causal relationship (FDA testing produces safer drugs), but this relationship will not occur in a particular case where another variable is changed (i.e., if testing results in fewer required warnings). Phrase #2 explains that the usual effects (safer drugs) will not apply in such circumstances because of a REASON (i.e., because people will stop thinking about individual risks).
_________________

If u can't jump the 700 wall , drill a big hole and cross it .. I can and I WILL DO IT ...need some encouragement and inspirations from U ALL

Expert Post
2 KUDOS received
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar
Joined: 01 Sep 2010
Posts: 2441
Followers: 312

Kudos [?]: 2621 [2] , given: 696

Re: Bold face cr- It is generally true that medications that [#permalink] New post 13 Oct 2012, 11:06
2
This post received
KUDOS
Expert's post
MacFauz wrote:
carcass wrote:
First of all a consideration is not a fact, is what i Think about a situation (could be or not to be true). A fact is a fact what happens, a scenario ( a thief steal my ipod) evidence is stronger than fact ( I saw Mike steal my ipod: mike you are a thief)

In concrete what is the point of the whole situation: ok drugs tested are more safety than not tested. if FDA wants eliminate something at least, FDA should not eliminate something that helps people to understand the risk of drugs. Because if people do not inform theirself and based only their judgement on FDA, and what about if FDA was wrong ??

This is something about the chain in this CR.

For me is C, maybe I'm wrong but am confident, otherwise I would learn something :)


Hmmm... My reasoning is that consideration means a fact that has to be taken into account before deciding on something. Anyway... The OA along with the OE would really be an eye opener.



I said the same thing in other words :) sorry if the meaning was misunderstood

read this one. it is all about these differences soooo important

http://gmatcriticalreasoning.blogspot.i ... difference
_________________

COLLECTION OF QUESTIONS
Quant: 1. Bunuel Signature Collection - The Next Generation 2. Bunuel Signature Collection ALL-IN-ONE WITH SOLUTIONS 3. Veritas Prep Blog PDF Version
Verbal:1. Best EXTERNAL resources to tackle the GMAT Verbal Section 2. e-GMAT's ALL CR topics-Consolidated 3. New Critical Reasoning question bank by carcass 4. Meaning/Clarity SC Question Bank by Carcass_Souvik 5. e-GMAT's ALL SC topics-Consolidated-2nd Edition 6. The best reading to improve Reading Comprehension 7.Verbal question bank and Directories

Moderator
Moderator
User avatar
Joined: 02 Jul 2012
Posts: 1227
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy
GMAT 1: 740 Q49 V42
GPA: 3.8
WE: Engineering (Energy and Utilities)
Followers: 67

Kudos [?]: 717 [0], given: 116

Premium Member
Re: Bold face cr- It is generally true that medications that [#permalink] New post 14 Oct 2012, 20:07
Thanks for the link.. Generally confident in CR. Although, bold face CRs do trouble me.
_________________

Did you find this post helpful?... Please let me know through the Kudos button.

Thanks To The Almighty - My GMAT Debrief

GMAT Reading Comprehension: 7 Most Common Passage Types

Expert Post
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar
Joined: 01 Sep 2010
Posts: 2441
Followers: 312

Kudos [?]: 2621 [0], given: 696

Re: Bold face cr- It is generally true that medications that [#permalink] New post 15 Oct 2012, 03:16
Expert's post
1 KUDOS received
Verbal Forum Moderator
Verbal Forum Moderator
User avatar
Joined: 23 Jul 2010
Posts: 488
Followers: 43

Kudos [?]: 443 [1] , given: 249

GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member CAT Tests
Re: Public health advocate: It is generally true that medication [#permalink] New post 12 Nov 2013, 00:21
1
This post received
KUDOS
3 KUDOS received
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 09 Jul 2013
Posts: 19
Location: United States
Schools: Wharton '17, Haas '17
GMAT 1: 710 Q44 V44
GMAT 2: Q V
GPA: 3.65
WE: Military Officer (Military & Defense)
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 11 [3] , given: 10

Re: Public health advocate: It is generally true that medication [#permalink] New post 18 Nov 2013, 07:50
3
This post received
KUDOS
The answer should be C. Here is how I approached the question:

Step 1: ID the question type. Identify the role (AKA "bold faced" questions). Here our goal is to identify what role the bolded text plays in the argument.

Step 2: Deconstruct the argument. Absolutely essential for these kinds of questions. You can generally classify each sentence in the argument as: a Premise, a Conclusion, or Something else (background information, counter point, etc.). I abbreviate these categories below as "P," "C," or "S."

Here are my argument quick hand notes:
PHA says:
- Generally true (hint / foreshadow that this will be argued against...) that PhIII tested drugs = safer than non tested drugs. (I would classify this as "S" = something else)
- Also "generally true" that these drugs that undergo these tests = less side effects & better for public health. (I would classify this as "S" = something else)
- BUT (shift signal -> we're probably going to get a conclusion here), eliminating label warnings = bad for public health (This is the conclusion).
- Relying only on FDA labels = consumer won't consider side effects and could have more adverse reactions. (This is a Premise/support for the conclusion)
So the argument is S, S (bold), C, P (bold). Now we need to find an answer choice that gives us a S and a P for the bolded text.

Step 3: Remind yourself of the goal: I'm looking for the role the bold-faced text plays in the argument. That would be an S and a P (something else, and a premise).

Step 4: Work from wrong to right:

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.

- You have an S (something else -> a pattern accepted as true) but you have an S as well (result/consequence of the pattern)... Eliminate A.

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.


- You have a C (conclusion: author believe this will happen again...which isn't the conclusion) and a S (counter premise: evidence for a conclusion that argues against the authors conclusion). Eliminate B.

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.


- You have an S (something the author doesn't believe...background info) and you have a P (premise/evidence that supports the authors conclusion). This is probably it (S and P). Leave this answer choice, but consider the others.


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

- Here is a P (premise/proof to support a conclusion) and a C (the prediction/conclusion)....Eliminate D.

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

- Finally you have an S (couter premise) and a C (the stance = author's conclusion). This one is close and tricky. If you didn't de construct the argument correctly and determined that the second bold faced text is actually the conclusion then you might have picked this one. Remember the "therefore" test which will help you determine cause and effect in an argument.

Would it make sense if I said: Relying on FDA certs would cause more adverse reactions (2nd bold text), THEREFORE eliminating certs would harm public health?
This is sound cause and effect, and tells us that 2nd Bold Text supports the conclusion and is a premise.

Or: eliminating certs would harm public health, THEREFORE relying on FDA certs would cause more adverse reactions .
Reversing the logic and the cause effect doesn't make sense....

Hope this helps.
1 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 24 Oct 2013
Posts: 163
Location: Canada
GMAT 1: Q49 V38
WE: Design (Transportation)
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 3 [1] , given: 81

GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member CAT Tests
Re: Public health advocate: It is generally true that medication [#permalink] New post 25 Sep 2014, 15:32
1
This post received
KUDOS
MacFauz wrote:
carcass wrote:
First of all a consideration is not a fact, is what i Think about a situation (could be or not to be true). A fact is a fact what happens, a scenario ( a thief steal my ipod) evidence is stronger than fact ( I saw Mike steal my ipod: mike you are a thief)

In concrete what is the point of the whole situation: ok drugs tested are more safety than not tested. if FDA wants eliminate something at least, FDA should not eliminate something that helps people to understand the risk of drugs. Because if people do not inform theirself and based only their judgement on FDA, and what about if FDA was wrong ??

This is something about the chain in this CR.

For me is C, maybe I'm wrong but am confident, otherwise I would learn something :)


Hmmm... My reasoning is that consideration means a fact that has to be taken into account before deciding on something. Anyway... The OA along with the OE would really be an eye opener.


Hi MacFauz,

I got this from the video 'Thurday's with Ron', I know its probably way too late to share. But I still thought I'd share this here for other's benefit. This photo shows what words can be classified under facts and claims, and also identifies words which can be either.
Attachments

Screen Shot 2014-09-25 at 1.35.51 AM.png
Screen Shot 2014-09-25 at 1.35.51 AM.png [ 361.19 KiB | Viewed 354 times ]

Re: Public health advocate: It is generally true that medication   [#permalink] 25 Sep 2014, 15:32
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
1 Some public health advocates have become concerned that goodyear2013 5 21 Mar 2014, 15:50
Some public health advocates have become concerned that OptimusPrimea1 2 14 Aug 2011, 23:30
Consumer advocate: it is generally true, at least in this garimavyas 0 14 Jan 2014, 09:16
Public health advocate: Generally over the past 30 years in mbaMission 5 28 May 2009, 22:19
Consumer Advocate: It is generally true, at least in this kimmyg 4 05 Sep 2005, 11:16
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Public health advocate: It is generally true that medication

  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®.