Armstrong: For the treatment of a particular disease, Dr. Sullivan arg

Question

Armstrong: For the treatment of a particular disease, Dr. Sullivan argues for using nutritional supplements rather than the pharrnaceuticals that most doctors prescribe. But this is in his self-interest since he is paid to endorse a line of nutritional supplements. Thus, we should not use nutritional supplements in treating the disease.

Armstrong's argument is flawed in that it

A. relies on two different meanings of the term "supplement" to draw a conclusion

B. relies solely on an appeal to an authority whose trustworthiness should not necessarily be taken for granted

C. appeals to people's emotions regarding the treatment of disease rather than to the efficacy of the two approaches to treatment

D. criticizes Dr. Sullivan's motives for holding a position rather than addressing the position itself

E.. fails to justify its presumption that nutritional supplements cannot be used in conjunction with other treatments

LSAT

chetan2u · Answer

Armstrong initially attacks Dr S method and there after attaches his personal motive to that method. 
So he does not attack the shortcomings of the method but involves personal motive to the method.

D gives the exact reasoning

sunny91 · Answer

Hi Chetan2u,
Can you please explain option D again. Armstrong did not initially attack Dr. Sullivan's method. He found a reason that since personal motives are involved, w cant trust Dr. Sulivan.
Option D states that- D. criticizes Dr. Sullivan's motives for holding a position rather than addressing the position itself 
I think the flaw is Armstrong's method of reasoning to dismiss Sulivan's claim. Armstrong does not need to address the position whether nutritional supplements are better than the pharrnaceutical supplements. His logic of reasoning to dismiss Sulivan's claim is wrong. 
Please help me on this.

GMAT215 · Answer

pls help me to how OA is correct.. cant really link OA with question stem

VeritasPrepBrian · Answer

If you break down this argument:

Sentence 1 is background information telling us that this doctor recommends supplements.

Sentence 2 is the evidence for the conclusion: the doctor is acting in self interest! Notice, too, that the supplements aren't mentioned here...just the doctor.

Sentence 3 is the conclusion: therefore, we shouldn't use these supplements.

So if we're looking for a flaw in reasoning, it has to do with Sentence 2, or how 2 interacts with 3.

Look at what's missing between 2 and 3 - the only piece of evidence for "don't use the supplements" is "the doctor acts in self-interest." The major premise never mentions the supplements! All it does is mention how the doctor is motivated. And that's the flaw: the conclusion says that you shouldn't use supplements, but its only evidence is about the motives of one person who recommends the supplements - we don't have any evidence that the supplements are ineffective (or bad for any other reason). And that's what D tells us.

RohitSaluja · Answer

Analysis of the argument

Dr. Sullivan argues for using nutritional supplements rather than the pharmaceuticals supplement. Armstrong senses something fishy is going on as he knows Dr. Sullivan also get commision on promoting nutritional supplements and concludes that nutritional supplements should not be used. Let'us look at the options now

A. relies on two different meanings of the term "supplement" to draw a conclusion   Nowhere in the argument the term supplement has been used in different contexts, hence this is out

B. relies solely on an appeal to an authority whose trustworthiness should not necessarily be taken for granted   Nowhere in the argument any appeal to authority was made

C. appeals to people's emotions regarding the treatment of disease rather than to the efficacy of the two approaches to treatment   Nowhere in the argument any heed was paid to any emotions

D. criticizes Dr. Sullivan's motives for holding a position rather than addressing the position itself   He attacks at the Sullivan's position rather than stating anything about position itself, one e.g. could be Rohit is asking us to join anti-smoking campaign organized by him, but Rohit smokes himself, so we should not listen to him, in this argument, the author is not addressin the position in question but is attacking Rohit

E. fails to justify its presumption that nutritional supplements cannot be used in conjunction with other treatments   Armstrong never criticized the use of nutritional supplements rather he criticized that Dr. Sullivan has motives to promote them, so if Sullivan is promoting those supplements, he is only doing out of devious intentions.

vishujn2 · Answer

f in option E -fails to justify its presumption that nutritional supplements can be used in conjunction with other treatment .
can be a weaker or not

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

Armstrong: For the treatment of a particular disease, Dr. Sullivan arg

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

Armstrong: For the treatment of a particular disease, Dr. Sullivan arg

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