A new drug, taken twice daily for one month, is an effective treatment

Question

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
B) It is possible that the drug now most commonly prescribed has side effects that have not yet been attributed to it
C) other drugs for the disease have typically been prescribed only for patients allergic to the most commonly prescribed drug
D) people who have received effective treatment for disease do not generally contract the disease again
E) there is a nonprescription medication that when taken with the new drug prevents the onset of nausea

Similar Question

abhimahna · Accepted Answer

We have to add something that supports the contention that inspite of side effects this drug is preferable.

A)people who experience nausea are prone to discontinue use of the new drug prematurely  --> If people are prone to discontinue the drug , then it couldn't be concluded that this drug is a preferable treatment. 
B)It is possible that the drug now most commonly prescribed has side effects that have not yet been attributed to it  --> Weakens the conclusion. If many new side effects are going to come into picture then it would not be a preferred drug. 
C)other drugs for the disease have typically been prescribed only for patients allergic to the most commonly prescribed drug  --> Irrelevent as we have to talk about this drug only. 
D)people who have received effective treatment for disease do not generally contract the disease again  --> Irrelevent. 
E)there is a nonprescription medication that when taken with the new drug prevents the onset of nausea - -> If the non prescription medicine could help preventing nausea and tis drug could easily perform its function, then it would be the preferable drug. Hence, Correct

sayantanc2k · Answer

I see your point. B and E both could fill in the gap.

However, the reason that I can suggest why E is better than B is that option B states a probable case, whereas option E states a certain case and hence is stronger.

ajay2121988 · Answer

In B, how does it weaken? B says it's possible the current drug has still more side effects, that is other than seizures. That logically makes the new drug preferable. So IMO B is ok. Although it isn't the OA.

Posted from my mobile device

Posted from my mobile device

abhimahna · Answer

A) It is possible that the drug now most commonly prescribed has side effects that have not yet been attributed to it.  --> Conclusion is about new drugs. Not about current drug. Kind of Strengthener 
B) People who experience nausea are prone to discontinue use of the new drug prematurely.  --> If they are discontinue using prematurely, it may lead to other implications. 
C) Other drugs for the disease have typically been prescribed only for patients allergic to the most commonly prescribed drug.  : Other drugs, Out of context. 
D) People who have received effective treatment for disease do not generally contract the disease again.  --> Irrelevant, as it has nothing to related to the conclusion. 
E) There is a nonprescription medication that when taken with the new drug prevents the onset of nausea.   --> Strengthener. Hence, incorrect.

HanoiGMATtutor · Answer

Answer E is correct. The only side effect that the new drug produces is mild nausea. So if it is easy to eliminate this only side effect, you can conclude that the new drug is a better treatment.

shashankism · Answer

Premise : 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.

Conclusion : Nevertheless, the new drug is clearly preferable as a treatment, since...(premise)

Pre-thinking : 1. May be there is no other drug available to cure the disease completely and this drug is highly effective. 
2. There may be some medicine available to cure the nausea even while using this new drug.

Options : 
 A) people who experience nausea are prone to discontinue use of the new drug prematurely 
If people stop using drug on experiencing nausea, this drug will not be preferable since the cases of nausea turned out to be frequent and more than expected.

B) It is possible that the drug now most commonly prescribed has side effects that have not yet been attributed to it 
Current most commonly prescribed drug may also have side effects, but it has not been proven yet in the field tests while the new drugs side effect has been proved in the field test.

C) other drugs for the disease have typically been prescribed only for patients allergic to the most commonly prescribed drug 
This is strengthening the use of most prescribed drug and not the new drug.

D) people who have received effective treatment for disease do not generally contract the disease again 
Out of scope as it is talking about effective treatment and not about new drug.

E) there is a nonprescription medication that when taken with the new drug prevents the onset of nausea 
Oh so there is a medication available that can prevent nausea while using the new drug. Fantastic. So this solves the problem.

Will2020 · Answer

GMATNinja DmitryFarber VeritasKarishma Why B is wrong? Is the "not yet been attributed to it" part? I mean, since the side effects are not attributed YET, we can evaluate between the new drug VS the commonly prescribed? Tks!

DmitryFarber · Answer

Will2020  The trick here is that we want an answer that helps us compare the new drug favorably to the old one. We already know that the old drug has serious side effects. The only objection to the new drug is that its side effects may be more frequent. So ideally we'd strengthen the argument by finding one of three things: 1) a new reason to object to the old drug, 2) an additional advantage of the new drug, or 3) a reason not to worry about the new drug's side effects. E gives us option 3, so it's a solid strengthen.

B may seem to give us option 1, but does it really? Since we know that the old drug has bad side effects, it's not immediately helpful to learn that it MAY have additional side effects, without any mention of their frequency or severity. Sure, any side effects could be considered bad (unless they are "leads to perfect verbal scores" or something like that), but any drug MAY have unknown side effects. For all we know, the same is true of the new drug! Also, since we don't know the severity of these side effects, we don't know how to compare them to the known side effects of the new drug. So while B seems to point in the right general direction (something bad about the old drug), it doesn't give us enough clarity to make a different decision than we would already have made. Contrast that to E, which allows us to clearly conclude that the worst side effect of the new drug can be neutralized, making it clearly preferable to the more dangerous old one.

kntombat · Answer

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.

AndrewN · Answer

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.

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 .

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 .

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 .

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 .

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

jabhatta2 · Answer

Hi  AndrewN - was wondering if you think this is another weakeness in B

In B -- We dont know if the  un-attributed  side effect (for the  drug now most commonly prescribed ) is something that patients will bother about ?

For example -
- if the patients are aneroxic patients.
- if the  un-attributed  side effect (for the  drug now most commonly prescribed ) turns out to be weight gain

Perhaps aneroxic patients are NOT really bothered by this new / un-attributed side effect ?

Given we dont know if the patients eventually would be bothered / would not be bothered ONCE  un-attributed side effect  (for the  drug now most commonly prescribed ) is found == we can eliminate B

Thoughts ?

AndrewN · Answer

Hello,  jabhatta2 . I think you may be confusing  preferable  from the final line of the passage (for reference,  the new drug is clearly preferable as a treatment ) as a  preference  that a disease sufferer might have. The argument is put forth by some unknown or unidentified person or group as a general truth. This person is speaking without sufferers in mind, but with an eye on  side effects , those known to occur with the use of the old drug versus those experienced with the use of the new drug. As such, I do not think we can eliminate answer choice (B) based on whether sufferers of this disease would be  bothered by  certain side effects. Such a consideration goes beyond what I deem fitting for CR logic, which tends to be more straight-arrow: the new drug has a certain side effect that occurs more frequently, but that side effect can readily be mitigated (by a nonprescription medication).

By the way, I am not sure that your real-world scenario is apt. I am not saying that every anorexic is the same, but I have known one in my life, and this person would never see weight gain as a positive. Many anorexics starve themselves not only because they think they look or feel better, but because they enjoy the attention that people show them because of their gaunt appearance, even thriving from a hospital stay. It is a mental disease as well as a physical one. It is quite difficult to change an entrenched belief, even after physical symptoms of dysfunction start to manifest.

I see what you were driving at, but I think your associative reasoning took over. You do not need to craft a little story to find a weakness. Just look for the easiest target, eliminate if possible, and move on.

Thank you for following up.

- Andrew

NCC · Answer

Dear  
Doesn't Option D actually mean that the people who use the new drug do not get the disease again? As it is clearly mentioned in the argument that new drug = effective treatment. This will in turn be the strongest candidate for this question...

custodio · Answer

DmitryFarber   AndrewN 
I was thinking about the same. Effective treatment is mentioned only with new drug, so I also thought this option tries to talk about new drug.

jabhatta2 · Answer

Hi  avigutman  - what do you think of these options

Do you think an answer like this WOULD BE apt ?

I think  no  because we need to look for answer choices within the context of " the new drug is clearly preferable   as a treatment   "

Do you think an answer like this WOULD BE apt ?

I think  no  because we need to look for answer choices within the context of " the new drug is clearly preferable   as a treatment   "

I think this  WOULD  be an answer.

avigutman · Answer

jabhatta2  We don't have information comparing the effectiveness of the two drugs, but we do have information comparing the side effects of the two drugs. We know that the old drug has worse side effects at a low frequency, and the new drug has more mild side effects at a higher frequency.
The author claims that the new drug is preferable, but the justification for that claim is missing.
I don't know that I'm able to categorically say that  frequent mild side effects    are preferable to    infrequent severe side effects . Can you?
That's why the author needs answer choice (E). We're looking for an answer choice that makes it EASY to identify which of the above highlights is preferable. (F) and (G) give a point to the new drug, but they don't justify the author's use of the word "clearly" (i.e. it's still not OBVIOUS that frequent mild side effects + stopping the aging process is preferable to infrequent severe side effects + increasing the aging process). Would you be willing to vomit every 10 minutes of your life if it means that you don't age? I doubt it.
Answer (H) goes against one of the premises of the argument:
 
If (H) were true, then yes, that would work. It's OBVIOUS that mild side effects are preferable to severe side effects, all else (namely, the frequency) being equal.

jabhatta2 · Answer

Hi Avi – thank you for the response

Between  frequent mild side effects  and  infrequent severe side effects

You are allowed to make basic common sense assumptions (allowed on the CR) :

I got the impression that  first  is preferred over the  second

I would much prefer (i) > (ii)

(i) Mild side effect ONCE a month 
vs 
(ii) Serious side effect ONCE A year

Thus I thought the  NEW DRUG  had a  built-in advantage.

But then  nevertheless  does not make sense. If the New Drug > Old Drug -- then i suppose you dont need the word :  Nevertheless

avigutman · Answer

Precisely,  jabhatta2 . Well done.

Aishyk97 · Answer

I think the problem with B is that we do not know what the current side effects are. You have to assume that the side effects could be very mild such as making the patient sleepy or hungry or the side effects could be extreme. The point I am trying to make is that we don't know and we will have to make an assumption for B to stand.

But according to option E, there is a remedy to the side effect. So the new drug should be used.

A new drug, taken twice daily for one month, is an effective treatment

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

A new drug, taken twice daily for one month, is an effective treatment

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards