CaffeinatedCoder wrote:
A pharmaceutical company is conducting clinical trials on a new drug designed to treat depression. The company claims that the drug will represent a major advance in antidepressant therapy based on the results of an initial clinical trial. In the trial, 70% of patients with depression who received the new drug reported a significant improvement in their symptoms.
Which of the following is an assumption required by the pharmaceutical company's claim?
A) The new drug does not cause any major side effects that could outweigh its potential benefits.
B) A majority of patients with depression who take traditional antidepressants improve significantly.
C) The patients who received the new drug were selected randomly from the overall population of patients with depression.
D) The initial clinical trial was designed in a way that minimized the placebo effect.
E) Patients who received the new drug were not also making positive lifestyle changes that could have helped improve their depression.
An assumption is something unstated that must be true for the conclusion to follow from the evidence. Identifying the assumption allows us to evaluate the argument's logic.
In this question, the company concludes their drug is a "major advance" in treating depression based on initial trial results.
What is an assumption needed to link the evidence to this conclusion?
A) Drug has no major side effects
This HAS to be true for the company's conclusion of "major advance" to logically follow based just on short-term trial results.
B) Traditional antidepressants are less effective
Irrelevant to the specific conclusion tied to the initial trial results.
C) Random patient selection
Trial sampling is irrelevant to the "major advance" conclusion.
D) Placebo effect was minimized
Trial design does not allow broad claims without assuming no major side effects.
E) Patients were not making lifestyle changes
Lifestyle changes could potentially contribute to measured improvements in the trial. However, the conclusion of a "major advance" specifically requires assuming no major side effects. Even if lifestyle changes did play a role, the drug cannot be considered a breakthrough without ruling out detrimental side effects first. There are many factors that could potentially improve symptoms, but the company is not considering those nuances. They make a very strong conclusion tied to drug capability itself, which requires assuming no major side effects undermining the drug's benefit. Lifestyle changes do not HAVE to be ruled out for their specific conclusion to follow logically.
In summary, option A identifies an assumption that HAS to be true for the company's claim to be valid. The other options do not identify assumptions central to the argument's logic.