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

It is currently 23 Oct 2014, 08:31

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

The proposal to extend clinical trials, which are routinely

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 29 Jul 2006
Posts: 877
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 15 [0], given: 0

The proposal to extend clinical trials, which are routinely [#permalink] New post 06 Apr 2007, 01:58
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions
The proposal to extend clinical trials, which are routinely used as systematic tests of pharmaceutical innovations, to new surgical procedures should not be implemented. The point is that surgical procedures differ in one important respect from medicinal drugs: a correctly prescribed drug depends for its effectiveness only on the drug’s composition, whereas the effectiveness of even the most appropriate surgical procedure is transparently related to the skills of the surgeon who uses it.
The reasoning in the argument is flawed because the argument
(A) does not consider that new surgical procedures might be found to be intrinsically more harmful than the best treatment previously available
(B) ignores the possibility that the challenged proposal is deliberately crude in a way designed to elicit criticism to be used in refining the proposal
(C) assumes that a surgeon’s skills remain unchanged throughout the surgeon’s professional life
(D) describes a dissimilarity without citing any scientific evidence for the existence of that dissimilarity
(E) rejects a proposal presumably advanced in good faith without acknowledging any such good faith

Give explanations for ur choices
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 27 Jul 2006
Posts: 299
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 06 Apr 2007, 02:56
Here I see the problem in the argument as the difference between a skilled prescriber and a skilled surgeon.

What it is saying is that drugs cn be more systematically tested than sugical devices.

I would use D here as there is no case study to prove that this is true.

Also it assumes that one is always able to properly prescribe a drug, and not always able to perform proper surgury.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 256
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 06 Apr 2007, 08:30
I would say C because the passage is trying to assume that the skills of the surgeon would be inconsistant. However, drugs can also be inconsistant too ( although the passage is trying to justify it). The passage doesn't have anything to prove that the skills of the surgeon would be inconsistant.
VP
VP
avatar
Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Posts: 1474
Schools: Wharton (R2 - submitted); HBS (R2 - submitted); IIMA (admitted for 1 year PGPX)
Followers: 15

Kudos [?]: 102 [0], given: 13

Re: CR-clinical trials [#permalink] New post 06 Apr 2007, 10:43
vineetgupta wrote:

The proposal to extend clinical trials, which are routinely used as systematic tests of pharmaceutical innovations, to new surgical procedures should not be implemented. The point is that surgical procedures differ in one important respect from medicinal drugs: a correctly prescribed drug depends for its effectiveness only on the drug’s composition, whereas the effectiveness of even the most appropriate surgical procedure is transparently related to the skills of the surgeon who uses it.

The reasoning in the argument is flawed because the argument

(A) does not consider that new surgical procedures might be found to be intrinsically more harmful than the best treatment previously available

(B) ignores the possibility that the challenged proposal is deliberately crude in a way designed to elicit criticism to be used in refining the proposal

(C) assumes that a surgeon’s skills remain unchanged throughout the surgeon’s professional life

(D) describes a dissimilarity without citing any scientific evidence for the existence of that dissimilarity

(E) rejects a proposal presumably advanced in good faith without acknowledging any such good faith

Give explanations for ur choices




Phew!!!. This one is really tough. I would go with A because none of the other choices makes any sense to me.

The question is about why surgical procedures must not be clinically tried in much the same way as medicines are. The passage argues this must not be allowed and it cites as reason the fact that surgical procedures differ in that "they depend on the skill of the surgeon".

Fine, but what happens if the (new) surgical procedure itself (let's forget about the skill of the surgeon for a moment) - is intrinsically more harmful [I can't think of a practical example - but let's say one has kidney stones - and the choice is between using radiation to burn the stones out versus removing the stones surgically - the surgery would be intrinsically more harmful than using radiation] than the best treatment (non surgical) previously available.

Thus there is always the possiblitiy of finding out through clinical trials whether a new surgical procedure is appropriate in a given situation - just as with drugs.
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 29 Jul 2006
Posts: 877
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 15 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 06 Apr 2007, 11:18
Good going saurabh...its A indeed.
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 07 Feb 2007
Posts: 212
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 0

Re: CR-clinical trials [#permalink] New post 06 Apr 2007, 18:09
vineetgupta wrote:
The proposal to extend clinical trials, which are routinely used as systematic tests of pharmaceutical innovations, to new surgical procedures should not be implemented. The point is that surgical procedures differ in one important respect from medicinal drugs: a correctly prescribed drug depends for its effectiveness only on the drug’s composition, whereas the effectiveness of even the most appropriate surgical procedure is transparently related to the skills of the surgeon who uses it.
The reasoning in the argument is flawed because the argument
(A) does not consider that new surgical procedures might be found to be intrinsically more harmful than the best treatment previously available
(B) ignores the possibility that the challenged proposal is deliberately crude in a way designed to elicit criticism to be used in refining the proposal
(C) assumes that a surgeon’s skills remain unchanged throughout the surgeon’s professional life
(D) describes a dissimilarity without citing any scientific evidence for the existence of that dissimilarity
(E) rejects a proposal presumably advanced in good faith without acknowledging any such good faith

Give explanations for ur choices


I am totally confused about this question.
What is the meaning of the first sentence--"The proposal to extend clinical trials to new surgical procedures should not be implemented"?
Does it mean "let us just use it, because blah, blah, blah...", or "let us do not use it until we find another way to test it"?
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 20 Nov 2006
Posts: 215
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 0

Re: CR-clinical trials [#permalink] New post 06 Apr 2007, 20:55
vineetgupta wrote:
The proposal to extend clinical trials, which are routinely used as systematic tests of pharmaceutical innovations, to new surgical procedures should not be implemented. The point is that surgical procedures differ in one important respect from medicinal drugs: a correctly prescribed drug depends for its effectiveness only on the drug’s composition, whereas the effectiveness of even the most appropriate surgical procedure is transparently related to the skills of the surgeon who uses it.
The reasoning in the argument is flawed because the argument
(A) does not consider that new surgical procedures might be found to be intrinsically more harmful than the best treatment previously available - if the new surgical procedures are found to be more harmful then the argument is strengthened. - not correct.
(B) ignores the possibility that the challenged proposal is deliberately crude in a way designed to elicit criticism to be used in refining the proposal - Not correct
(C) assumes that a surgeon’s skills remain unchanged throughout the surgeon’s professional life - In no way it is related with the argument. We are comapring between clinical trials and sugical procedures and the argument is that surgical procedures are not to be allowed. - so irrelevant.(D) describes a dissimilarity without citing any scientific evidence for the existence of that dissimilarity - Seems to be correct - the evidence cited is not comparable. (E) rejects a proposal presumably advanced in good faith without acknowledging any such good faith - Not correct

Give explanations for ur choices
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 24 Sep 2006
Posts: 281
Followers: 1

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

 [#permalink] New post 06 Apr 2007, 22:23
It is between A and C

A is definitely strong because it states that surgical procedures intrinsically are home harmful

A it is
_________________

AimHigher

Intern
Intern
User avatar
Joined: 02 Apr 2007
Posts: 33
Followers: 0

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

 [#permalink] New post 07 Apr 2007, 01:51
A is the answer.
Initially thought this q is something about btw drug and surgery, but no answer choices mentioning it. Yet best would be A since it talks a flaw in surgery itself. very good q.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 28 Feb 2007
Posts: 198
Location: California
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 0

Re: CR-clinical trials [#permalink] New post 07 Apr 2007, 02:06
dwivedys wrote:
vineetgupta wrote:

The proposal to extend clinical trials, which are routinely used as systematic tests of pharmaceutical innovations, to new surgical procedures should not be implemented. The point is that surgical procedures differ in one important respect from medicinal drugs: a correctly prescribed drug depends for its effectiveness only on the drug’s composition, whereas the effectiveness of even the most appropriate surgical procedure is transparently related to the skills of the surgeon who uses it.

The reasoning in the argument is flawed because the argument

(A) does not consider that new surgical procedures might be found to be intrinsically more harmful than the best treatment previously available

(B) ignores the possibility that the challenged proposal is deliberately crude in a way designed to elicit criticism to be used in refining the proposal

(C) assumes that a surgeon’s skills remain unchanged throughout the surgeon’s professional life

(D) describes a dissimilarity without citing any scientific evidence for the existence of that dissimilarity

(E) rejects a proposal presumably advanced in good faith without acknowledging any such good faith

Give explanations for ur choices




Phew!!!. This one is really tough. I would go with A because none of the other choices makes any sense to me.

The question is about why surgical procedures must not be clinically tried in much the same way as medicines are. The passage argues this must not be allowed and it cites as reason the fact that surgical procedures differ in that "they depend on the skill of the surgeon".

Fine, but what happens if the (new) surgical procedure itself (let's forget about the skill of the surgeon for a moment) - is intrinsically more harmful [I can't think of a practical example - but let's say one has kidney stones - and the choice is between using radiation to burn the stones out versus removing the stones surgically - the surgery would be intrinsically more harmful than using radiation] than the best treatment (non surgical) previously available.

Thus there is always the possiblitiy of finding out through clinical trials whether a new surgical procedure is appropriate in a given situation - just as with drugs.


But then the same may hold for clinical trials of medicines too. None of the choices make complete sense.

I prefer D
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 115
Followers: 1

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

 [#permalink] New post 07 Apr 2007, 06:12
A.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 26 Aug 2006
Posts: 55
Followers: 1

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

 [#permalink] New post 07 Apr 2007, 18:30
Should be D.
Please post OA?
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 23 Mar 2007
Posts: 177
Followers: 0

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

 [#permalink] New post 19 Apr 2007, 11:26
I vote for A. Btw what is the OA?
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 847
GMAT 1: 740 Q48 V42
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 25 [0], given: 1

Re: CR-clinical trials [#permalink] New post 20 Apr 2007, 07:20
The proposal to extend clinical trials, which are routinely used as systematic tests of pharmaceutical innovations, to new surgical procedures should not be implemented. The point is that surgical procedures differ in one important respect from medicinal drugs: a correctly prescribed drug depends for its effectiveness only on the drug’s composition, whereas the effectiveness of even the most appropriate surgical procedure is transparently related to the skills of the surgeon who uses it.The reasoning in the argument is flawed because the argument
(A) does not consider that new surgical procedures might be found to be intrinsically more harmful than the best treatment previously available
- the arguement is about the not about the surgical procedures vs previous available treatments
(B) ignores the possibility that the challenged proposal is deliberately crude in a way designed to elicit criticism to be used in refining the proposal
- irrelevant
(C) assumes that a surgeon’s skills remain unchanged throughout the surgeon’s professional life
- No such assumption is made
(D) describes a dissimilarity without citing any scientific evidence for the existence of that dissimilarity
-how does one know that the effectiveness of the drug is directly dependant on its composition alone. There is no evidence to this effect.
(E) rejects a proposal presumably advanced in good faith without acknowledging any such good faith
- irrelevant

I will go with D.

Anand
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 847
GMAT 1: 740 Q48 V42
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 25 [0], given: 1

 [#permalink] New post 20 Apr 2007, 07:27
AimHigher wrote:
It is between A and C

A is definitely strong because it states that surgical procedures intrinsically are home harmful

A it is


What if the previously available best treatment itself was a surgical procedure? There is nothing in the argument that suggests all surgical procedures are harmful ( even if compared to other drug treatments). The comparison is only about the new surgical procedures.

Anand
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 29 Jul 2006
Posts: 877
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 15 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 20 Apr 2007, 07:29
vineetgupta wrote:
Good going saurabh...its A indeed.


I already posted the OA guys...its A.
  [#permalink] 20 Apr 2007, 07:29
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
The recent clinical trials have revealed that royQV 4 15 Aug 2014, 22:12
12 Experts publish their posts in the topic Editorial: In a compelling preponderance of clinical trials, avohden 19 01 Nov 2013, 12:23
The proposal to extend clinical trials, which are routinely noboru 3 04 Jun 2010, 04:35
The proposal to extend clinical trials, which are routinely WinWinMBA 13 16 Jun 2005, 15:46
The proposal to extend clinical trials, which are routinely saurya_s 13 01 Mar 2005, 09:20
Display posts from previous: Sort by

The proposal to extend clinical trials, which are routinely

  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®.