GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 25 Jun 2019, 12:59

### 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

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

# Doctor: While a few alternative medicines have dangerous

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Intern
Joined: 08 Dec 2012
Posts: 36
Doctor: While a few alternative medicines have dangerous  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

Updated on: 13 Jun 2018, 11:32
5
19
00:00

Difficulty:

95% (hard)

Question Stats:

36% (02:01) correct 64% (02:23) wrong based on 611 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Doctor: While a few alternative medicines have dangerous side effects, some, such as many herbs, have been proven safe to consume. Thus, though there is little firm evidence of medicinal effect, advocates of these herbs as remedies for serious illnesses should always be allowed to prescribe them, since their patients will not be harmed, and might be helped, by the use of these products.

Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the doctor's argument?

A) Many practitioners and patients neglect more effective conventional medicines in favor of herbal remedies.
B) Many herbal remedies are marketed with claims of proven effectiveness when in fact their effectiveness is unproven.
C) Some patients may have allergic reactions to certain medicines that have been tolerated by other patients.
D) The vast majority of purveyors of alternative medicines are driven as much by the profit motive as by a regard for their patients' health.
E) Any pain relief or other benefits of many herbs have been proven to derive entirely from patients' belief in the remedy, rather than from its biochemical properties.

Originally posted by SUNGMAT710 on 01 Aug 2013, 00:38.
Last edited by generis on 13 Jun 2018, 11:32, edited 2 times in total.
Formatted the question
Intern
Joined: 20 Mar 2013
Posts: 10
Re: Doctor: While a few alternative medicines have dangerous  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 Aug 2013, 20:43
4
1
Hi All,

Lets look at the argument the author is trying to make:

Advocates of herbal meds should "always" be allowed to prescribe them for serious illness, as they are not harmful and might help the patient.

Now lets look at our options:

1.Many practitioners and patients neglect more effective conventional medicines in favor of herbal remedies.
This statement clearly suggests that the doctors should not be allowed to prescribe herbal remedies all the time, since better conventional medicines are available that will definitely help a patient. Hence this weakens the argument of always allowing practitioners to prescribe herbal meds.

2.Many herbal remedies are marketed with claims of proven effectiveness when in fact their effectiveness is unproven.
This does weaken authors argument in anyway.

3.Some patients may have allergic reactions to certain medicines that have been tolerated by other patients.
This statement talks about allergic reactions to certain medicines - conventional or remedies not specified - that might affect some patients. This does not provide enough evidence to weaken authors argument.

4.The vast majority of purveyors of alternative medicines are driven as much by the profit motive as by a regard for their patients' health.
This statement gives just another reason that profit is another motive for which alternative meds can be suggested. This does not hamper the argument.

5.Any pain relief or other benefits of many herbs have been proven to derive entirely from patients' belief in the remedy, rather than from its biochemical properties.
This statement implies that herbal medicines are not the real reason why a patient consuming them may be benefited, it is the patients belief in remedy. However, it does not touch our argument or weaken our assumption in any way.

Correct Ans: A

Correct me if I am wrong.
##### General Discussion
Director
Joined: 14 Dec 2012
Posts: 741
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Operations
GMAT 1: 700 Q50 V34
GPA: 3.6
Re: Doctor: While a few alternative medicines have dangerous  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Aug 2013, 01:52
SUNGMAT710 wrote:
Doctor: While a few alternative medicines have dangerous side effects, some, such as many herbs, have been proven safe to consume. Thus, though there is little firm evidence of medicinal effect, advocates of these herbs as remedies for serious illnesses should always be allowed to prescribe them, since their patients will not be harmed, and might be helped, by the use of these products.

Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the doctor's argument?

1.Many practitioners and patients neglect more effective conventional medicines in favor of herbal remedies.
2.Many herbal remedies are marketed with claims of proven effectiveness when in fact their effectiveness is unproven.
3.Some patients may have allergic reactions to certain medicines that have been tolerated by other patients.
4.The vast majority of purveyors of alternative medicines are driven as much by the profit motive as by a regard for their patients' health.
5.Any pain relief or other benefits of many herbs have been proven to derive entirely from patients' belief in the remedy, rather than from its biochemical properties.

The OA is incorrect. I deliberately gave it incorrect as I want to see how people around think.How they are able to get to the right answer. The explanation given was not convincing enough. So, I posted it here. I will post the OA after a few days..Question Source: Grockit.

IMO C

CONCLUSION:Patients will not be harmed, and might be helped, by the use of these products.

SINCE these herbal medicines have been proven safe to consume==>this must have been tested on some people.

we have to weaken the conclusion.

1.Many practitioners and patients neglect more effective conventional medicines in favor of herbal remedies.==>this tells that because of herbs most effective medicines get neglected but it doesnt weakens in any way.

2.Many herbal remedies are marketed with claims of proven effectiveness when in fact their effectiveness is unproven.==>but it doesnt say that it will harm in anyway..hence doesnt weaken the conclusion.

3.Some patients may have allergic reactions to certain medicines that have been tolerated by other patients.
now this can weaken the conclusion.
some people tested and had no harmful effect but others might get affected.

4.The vast majority of purveyors of alternative medicines are driven as much by the profit motive as by a regard for their patients' health.
this doesnt weakens...as still the herbs will be harmless

5.Any pain relief or other benefits of many herbs have been proven to derive entirely from patients' belief in the remedy, rather than from its biochemical properties.
out of scope.

waiting OA
_________________
When you want to succeed as bad as you want to breathe ...then you will be successfull....

GIVE VALUE TO OFFICIAL QUESTIONS...

learn AWA writing techniques while watching video : http://www.gmatprepnow.com/module/gmat-analytical-writing-assessment
Intern
Joined: 08 Jul 2013
Posts: 5
GMAT Date: 11-18-2013
Re: Doctor: While a few alternative medicines have dangerous  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Aug 2013, 04:13
I also feel the OA is C.
Main Conclusion from the argument: Herbal medicines will not be harmful on patients so they can be used to experiment.

In Argument C it points out how some patients may be allergic to it and may be harmed.
Manager
Joined: 24 Nov 2012
Posts: 155
Concentration: Sustainability, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 770 Q50 V44
WE: Business Development (Internet and New Media)
Re: Doctor: While a few alternative medicines have dangerous  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Aug 2013, 12:53
2
1
Conclusion : Patients cannot be harmed and might be helped if practitioners were allowed to prescribe these.

IMO A

If many practitioners and patients neglect effective conventional medicines in favor of herbal remedies, the patients will be harmed.
_________________
You've been walking the ocean's edge, holding up your robes to keep them dry. You must dive naked under, and deeper under, a thousand times deeper! - Rumi

http://www.manhattangmat.com/blog/index.php/author/cbermanmanhattanprep-com/ - This is worth its weight in gold

Economist GMAT Test - 730, Q50, V41 Aug 9th, 2013
Manhattan GMAT Test - 670, Q45, V36 Aug 11th, 2013
Manhattan GMAT Test - 680, Q47, V36 Aug 17th, 2013
GmatPrep CAT 1 - 770, Q50, V44 Aug 24th, 2013
Manhattan GMAT Test - 690, Q45, V39 Aug 30th, 2013
Manhattan GMAT Test - 710, Q48, V39 Sep 13th, 2013
GmatPrep CAT 2 - 740, Q49, V41 Oct 6th, 2013

GMAT - 770, Q50, V44, Oct 7th, 2013
My Debrief - http://gmatclub.com/forum/from-the-ashes-thou-shall-rise-770-q-50-v-44-awa-5-ir-162299.html#p1284542
Intern
Joined: 10 Sep 2012
Posts: 26
Re: Doctor: While a few alternative medicines have dangerous  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Aug 2013, 19:58
[quote="SUNGMAT710"]Doctor: While a few alternative medicines have dangerous side effects, some, such as many herbs, have been proven safe to consume. Thus, though there is little firm evidence of medicinal effect, advocates of these herbs as remedies for serious illnesses should always be allowed to prescribe them, since their patients will not be harmed, and might be helped, by the use of these products.

Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the doctor's argument?
we need to find the one that most weaken the argument

1.Many practitioners and patients neglect more effective conventional medicines in favor of herbal remedies.
the argument is that since the patients will not be harmed, it might be helped. This one, if true, somewhat weakens the argument, but it does not prove that the conclusion is flaw as it cannot show that herbal will not help

2.Many herbal remedies are marketed with claims of proven effectiveness when in fact their effectiveness is unproven.
this is cited in the argument and cannot weaken the argument

3.Some patients may have allergic reactions to certain medicines that have been tolerated by other patients.
this does not specific point out that herbs might not help as in the argument's conclusion

4.The vast majority of purveyors of alternative medicines are driven as much by the profit motive as by a regard for their patients' health.
out of scope

5.Any pain relief or other benefits of many herbs have been proven to derive entirely from patients' belief in the remedy, rather than from its biochemical properties.
correct. It, if true, directly, and specifically, point out that the conclusion that the herbs, though proved to be safe, might be help is not true. So this is the best
_________________
Vietnam's number one online service on thit bo nhap khau
Intern
Joined: 10 Sep 2012
Posts: 26
Re: Doctor: While a few alternative medicines have dangerous  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Aug 2013, 20:09
1
Transcendentalist wrote:
Conclusion : Patients cannot be harmed and might be helped if practitioners were allowed to prescribe these.

IMO A

If many practitioners and patients neglect effective conventional medicines in favor of herbal remedies, the patients will be harmed.

the conclusion is limited in the scope that, herbs prescribing should always be allowed as it might be help. The conclusion does not state that herbs should always be used.
The fact that the patients may neglect other more effective conventional medicines CANNOT rule out the conclusion that herbs prescribing should be always allowed. The one that most weaken the conclusion should be the one that argues that herbs could not be of any help, and therefore, should not be always allowed
_________________
Vietnam's number one online service on thit bo nhap khau
Manager
Joined: 13 Aug 2012
Posts: 90
Re: Doctor: While a few alternative medicines have dangerous  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 Aug 2013, 10:51
1
SUNGMAT710 wrote:
Doctor: While a few alternative medicines have dangerous side effects, some, such as many herbs, have been proven safe to consume. Thus, though there is little firm evidence of medicinal effect, advocates of these herbs as remedies for serious illnesses should always be allowed to prescribe them, since their patients will not be harmed, and might be helped, by the use of these products.

Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the doctor's argument?

1.Many practitioners and patients neglect more effective conventional medicines in favor of herbal remedies.
2.Many herbal remedies are marketed with claims of proven effectiveness when in fact their effectiveness is unproven.
3.Some patients may have allergic reactions to certain medicines that have been tolerated by other patients.
4.The vast majority of purveyors of alternative medicines are driven as much by the profit motive as by a regard for their patients' health.
5.Any pain relief or other benefits of many herbs have been proven to derive entirely from patients' belief in the remedy, rather than from its biochemical properties.

The conclusion is advocates of these herbs as remedies for serious illnesses should always be allowed to prescribe them, since their patients will not be harmed, and might be helped, by the use of these products. So IMO A weakens the the conclusion by stating that since most practitioners and patients neglect conventional medicines in favor of herbal remedies, Advocates shouldn't always be allowed to prescribe such medicines.

Intern
Joined: 08 Dec 2012
Posts: 36
Re: Doctor: While a few alternative medicines have dangerous  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 Aug 2013, 19:48
mahendru1992 wrote:
SUNGMAT710 wrote:
Doctor: While a few alternative medicines have dangerous side effects, some, such as many herbs, have been proven safe to consume. Thus, though there is little firm evidence of medicinal effect, advocates of these herbs as remedies for serious illnesses should always be allowed to prescribe them, since their patients will not be harmed, and might be helped, by the use of these products.

Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the doctor's argument?

1.Many practitioners and patients neglect more effective conventional medicines in favor of herbal remedies.
2.Many herbal remedies are marketed with claims of proven effectiveness when in fact their effectiveness is unproven.
3.Some patients may have allergic reactions to certain medicines that have been tolerated by other patients.
4.The vast majority of purveyors of alternative medicines are driven as much by the profit motive as by a regard for their patients' health.
5.Any pain relief or other benefits of many herbs have been proven to derive entirely from patients' belief in the remedy, rather than from its biochemical properties.

The conclusion is advocates of these herbs as remedies for serious illnesses should always be allowed to prescribe them, since their patients will not be harmed, and might be helped, by the use of these products. So IMO A weakens the the conclusion by stating that since most practitioners and patients neglect conventional medicines in favor of herbal remedies, Advocates shouldn't always be allowed to prescribe such medicines.

OA provided...Updated today..
Manager
Joined: 28 Sep 2011
Posts: 58
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 520 Q34 V27
GMAT 3: 690 Q47 V38
GPA: 3.01
WE: Information Technology (Commercial Banking)
Re: Doctor: While a few alternative medicines have dangerous  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 Aug 2013, 19:52
2
What we know: We know that herbal remedies are safe, but they usually don't work

Type of question: Weakens (basically what will make the herbals unsafe)

1. neglecting conventional medicines in favor of herbals. Thus preventing the conventional medicine from doing what it does best. -- Keep for later
2. Claims of effectiveness -- we already know that there is little evidence of this. Disregard
3. Allergic reaction to certain medicines -- makes no mention of herbals. Disregard
4. Profits for alternative medicine -- doesn't talk about why herbals may be bad. Disregard
5. placebo affect -- we already know herbals don't work--disregard

Manager
Joined: 22 Apr 2013
Posts: 79
Re: Doctor: While a few alternative medicines have dangerous  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 Aug 2013, 23:29
SUNGMAT710 wrote:
Doctor: While a few alternative medicines have dangerous side effects, some, such as many herbs, have been proven safe to consume. Thus, though there islittle firm evidence of medicinal effect, advocates of these herbs as remedies for serious illnesses should always be allowed to prescribe them, since their patients will not be harmed, and might be helped, by the use of these products.

Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the doctor's argument?

1.Many practitioners and patients neglect more effective conventional medicines in favor of herbal remedies.
2.Many herbal remedies are marketed with claims of proven effectiveness when in fact their effectiveness is unproven.
3.Some patients may have allergic reactions to certain medicines that have been tolerated by other patients.
4.The vast majority of purveyors of alternative medicines are driven as much by the profit motive as by a regard for their patients' health.
5.Any pain relief or other benefits of many herbs have been proven to derive entirely from patients' belief in the remedy, rather than from its biochemical properties.

OA provided..

1.Many practitioners and patients neglect more effective conventional medicines in favor of herbal remedies. While the herbs won't harm the patient, and might help, that is vastly different than herbal remedies being effective medicinally. For the patient with a serious illnesses, they can be harmed by not receiving known, effective conventional medicines. Correct.
2.Many herbal remedies are marketed with claims of proven effectiveness when in fact their effectiveness is unproven. Stem states that medicinal value is not proven.
3.Some patients may have allergic reactions to certain medicines that have been tolerated by other patients. This does not have anything to do with taking an alternative medicine such as herbs.
4.The vast majority of purveyors of alternative medicines are driven as much by the profit motive as by a regard for their patients' health. Profit rules the world of business. Does nothing to weaken the argument.
5.Any pain relief or other benefits of many herbs have been proven to derive entirely from patients' belief in the remedy, rather than from its biochemical properties. As in B, the stem states medicinal value not proven.
_________________
I do not beg for kudos.
Intern
Joined: 08 Dec 2012
Posts: 36
Re: Doctor: While a few alternative medicines have dangerous  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Aug 2013, 21:56
ashish8 wrote:
What we know: We know that herbal remedies are safe, but they usually don't work

Type of question: Weakens (basically what will make the herbals unsafe)

1. neglecting conventional medicines in favor of herbals. Thus preventing the conventional medicine from doing what it does best. -- Keep for later
2. Claims of effectiveness -- we already know that there is little evidence of this. Disregard
3. Allergic reaction to certain medicines -- makes no mention of herbals. Disregard
4. Profits for alternative medicine -- doesn't talk about why herbals may be bad. Disregard
5. placebo affect -- we already know herbals don't work--disregard

Kudos for your spirit..Just one attempt and a 560 ,my spirit has dampened..
Thanks for coming across..My spirits have got lifted a little...given 1 kudo to you..
Intern
Joined: 10 Sep 2012
Posts: 26
Re: Doctor: While a few alternative medicines have dangerous  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Aug 2013, 20:36
Hi All,

Lets look at the argument the author is trying to make:

Advocates of herbal meds should "always" be allowed to prescribe them for serious illness, as they are not harmful and might help the patient.

Now lets look at our options:

1.Many practitioners and patients neglect more effective conventional medicines in favor of herbal remedies.
This statement clearly suggests that the doctors should not be allowed to prescribe herbal remedies all the time, since better conventional medicines are available that will definitely help a patient. Hence this weakens the argument of always allowing practitioners to prescribe herbal meds.

is it true that, if many (not all) practitioners and patients neglect more effective conventional medicines in favor of herbal remedies, and herb is not harmful and may help, herb prescribing should completely prohibited???

2.Many herbal remedies are marketed with claims of proven effectiveness when in fact their effectiveness is unproven.
This does weaken authors argument in anyway.

3.Some patients may have allergic reactions to certain medicines that have been tolerated by other patients.
This statement talks about allergic reactions to certain medicines - conventional or remedies not specified - that might affect some patients. This does not provide enough evidence to weaken authors argument.

4.The vast majority of purveyors of alternative medicines are driven as much by the profit motive as by a regard for their patients' health.
This statement gives just another reason that profit is another motive for which alternative meds can be suggested. This does not hamper the argument.

5.Any pain relief or other benefits of many herbs have been proven to derive entirely from patients' belief in the remedy, rather than from its biochemical properties.
This statement implies that herbal medicines are not the real reason why a patient consuming them may be benefited, it is the patients belief in remedy. However, it does not touch our argument or weaken our assumption in any way.

Correct Ans: A

Correct me if I am wrong.
_________________
Vietnam's number one online service on thit bo nhap khau
Intern
Joined: 20 Mar 2013
Posts: 10
Re: Doctor: While a few alternative medicines have dangerous  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Aug 2013, 22:49
benguy wrote:
Hi All,

Lets look at the argument the author is trying to make:

Advocates of herbal meds should "always" be allowed to prescribe them for serious illness, as they are not harmful and might help the patient.

Now lets look at our options:

1.Many practitioners and patients neglect more effective conventional medicines in favor of herbal remedies.
This statement clearly suggests that the doctors should not be allowed to prescribe herbal remedies all the time, since better conventional medicines are available that will definitely help a patient. Hence this weakens the argument of always allowing practitioners to prescribe herbal meds.

is it true that, if many (not all) practitioners and patients neglect more effective conventional medicines in favor of herbal remedies, and herb is not harmful and may help, herb prescribing should completely prohibited???

2.Many herbal remedies are marketed with claims of proven effectiveness when in fact their effectiveness is unproven.
This does weaken authors argument in anyway.

3.Some patients may have allergic reactions to certain medicines that have been tolerated by other patients.
This statement talks about allergic reactions to certain medicines - conventional or remedies not specified - that might affect some patients. This does not provide enough evidence to weaken authors argument.

4.The vast majority of purveyors of alternative medicines are driven as much by the profit motive as by a regard for their patients' health.
This statement gives just another reason that profit is another motive for which alternative meds can be suggested. This does not hamper the argument.

5.Any pain relief or other benefits of many herbs have been proven to derive entirely from patients' belief in the remedy, rather than from its biochemical properties.
This statement implies that herbal medicines are not the real reason why a patient consuming them may be benefited, it is the patients belief in remedy. However, it does not touch our argument or weaken our assumption in any way.

Correct Ans: A

Correct me if I am wrong.

This can be explained using the following two points:

1. The question is not about many or all practitioners, it is about advocates of herbal medicines. Hence, it is safe to assume that many practitioners (not all), will include many advocates of herbal medicines also.

2. If the advocates of herbal medicines are allowed to always prescribe herbal remedies for serious illness by neglecting effective conventional medicines, they may cause harm to patients health by doing so as they are taking a risk of prescribing herbal medicines, which may or may not work, instead of prescribing conventional medicines, which are have proven benefits. In simple words, always prescribing herbal medicines in serious illness may risk the patients health to get worse if the herbal medicine doesn't provide any help. So the practitioners should not be allowed to "always" prescribe herbal medicines in serious illness as it may risk the patients health to get worse

Hope this helps.
Intern
Joined: 10 Sep 2012
Posts: 26
Re: Doctor: While a few alternative medicines have dangerous  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Aug 2013, 08:40
benguy wrote:
Hi All,

Lets look at the argument the author is trying to make:

Advocates of herbal meds should "always" be allowed to prescribe them for serious illness, as they are not harmful and might help the patient.

Now lets look at our options:

1.Many practitioners and patients neglect more effective conventional medicines in favor of herbal remedies.
This statement clearly suggests that the doctors should not be allowed to prescribe herbal remedies all the time, since better conventional medicines are available that will definitely help a patient. Hence this weakens the argument of always allowing practitioners to prescribe herbal meds.

is it true that, if many (not all) practitioners and patients neglect more effective conventional medicines in favor of herbal remedies, and herb is not harmful and may help, herb prescribing should completely prohibited???

2.Many herbal remedies are marketed with claims of proven effectiveness when in fact their effectiveness is unproven.
This does weaken authors argument in anyway.

3.Some patients may have allergic reactions to certain medicines that have been tolerated by other patients.
This statement talks about allergic reactions to certain medicines - conventional or remedies not specified - that might affect some patients. This does not provide enough evidence to weaken authors argument.

4.The vast majority of purveyors of alternative medicines are driven as much by the profit motive as by a regard for their patients' health.
This statement gives just another reason that profit is another motive for which alternative meds can be suggested. This does not hamper the argument.

5.Any pain relief or other benefits of many herbs have been proven to derive entirely from patients' belief in the remedy, rather than from its biochemical properties.
This statement implies that herbal medicines are not the real reason why a patient consuming them may be benefited, it is the patients belief in remedy. However, it does not touch our argument or weaken our assumption in any way.

Correct Ans: A

Correct me if I am wrong.

This can be explained using the following two points:

1. The question is not about many or all practitioners, it is about advocates of herbal medicines. Hence, it is safe to assume that many practitioners (not all), will include many advocates of herbal medicines also.

2. If the advocates of herbal medicines are allowed to always prescribe herbal remedies for serious illness by neglecting effective conventional medicines, they may cause harm to patients health by doing so as they are taking a risk of prescribing herbal medicines, which may or may not work, instead of prescribing conventional medicines, which are have proven benefits. In simple words, always prescribing herbal medicines in serious illness may risk the patients health to get worse if the herbal medicine doesn't provide any help. So the practitioners should not be allowed to "always" prescribe herbal medicines in serious illness as it may risk the patients health to get worse

Sorry to keep this long, but I understand this question in this way:

i agree that practitioners should not be allowed to "always" prescribe herbal medicines (all the time)
but it's not what the conclusion in question refers to: advocates of these herbs as remedies for serious illnesses should always be allowed to prescribe them, which means herbs prescribing should not prohibited in any case.

in extreme cases, NOT all practitioners and patients neglect more effective conventional medicines in favor of herbal remedies. Advocates of herb should be always allowed to prescribe herbs and any other legal effective medicines. Clearly prohibiting the advocates of herb from prescribing herbs will violate their right to use herb which is not harmful and might help
_________________
Vietnam's number one online service on thit bo nhap khau
Intern
Joined: 08 Dec 2012
Posts: 36
Re: Doctor: While a few alternative medicines have dangerous  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 Aug 2013, 08:36
The logical disconnect within the argument is that it’s not harmful to prescribe something that, although not physically harmful, has not been shown to be medically effective. This assumption could be called into question, for example by evidence showing that people who take these herbs think they will provide the cure and choose not to pursue the standard medical treatment for their serious illnesses along with their herbal remedy. In that case, the herbal remedy is actually harmful, since it leads people not to do the proven medical treatment.

A. This is the correct choice, as it exploits the flaw we found in the analysis. If they neglect more effective conventional remedies in favor of unproven herbal remedies, then medical science predicts those patients with serious illness will be worse off by pursuing a course of herbal remedy.

B. This doesn’t substantively weaken the argument. The doctor already acknowledges that the herbal treatments are not effective. The fact that they’re misleadingly labeled might lead patients to take the herbal remedy and not follow conventional treatment, i.e. answer choice B might lead to answer choice A, but since we’re looking for the statement that most weakens the argument, we should choose the one that directly weakens it, A, rather than the one that only indirectly might weaken it, B.

C. This statement speaks of “some medicines,” but the doctor’s argument related only to herbs which have already been proven to be safe. Presumably that means they have also been tested for allergic reactions, so “these herbs” and “some medicines” would be referring to totally different groups of treatments.

D. The argument relates to whether or not taking these herbs won’t be harmful and could be helpful. The profit motive of the medicine/herb maker is irrelevant, or if anything actually strengthens his argument – the more effective the treatment, the better a money maker it is. Wanting to make money rather than caring for the patient doesn’t make it less likely to be effective, and anyway the doctor already acknowledges they aren’t effective, so this doesn’t weaken his argument.

E. This “placebo” effect does not undermine his argument. If the herbs help people because they believe in their effectiveness, then taking the herbs might help them, as the doctor argues.
Intern
Joined: 10 Sep 2012
Posts: 26
Re: Doctor: While a few alternative medicines have dangerous  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 Aug 2013, 21:10
The logical disconnect within the argument is that it’s not harmful to prescribe something that, although not physically harmful, has not been shown to be medically effective. This assumption could be called into question, for example by evidence showing that people who take these herbs think they will provide the cure and choose not to pursue the standard medical treatment for their serious illnesses along with their herbal remedy. In that case, the herbal remedy is actually harmful, since it leads people not to do the proven medical treatment.

A. This is the correct choice, as it exploits the flaw we found in the analysis. If they neglect more effective conventional remedies in favor of unproven herbal remedies, then medical science predicts those patients with serious illness will be worse off by pursuing a course of herbal remedy.

B. This doesn’t substantively weaken the argument. The doctor already acknowledges that the herbal treatments are not effective. The fact that they’re misleadingly labeled might lead patients to take the herbal remedy and not follow conventional treatment, i.e. answer choice B might lead to answer choice A, but since we’re looking for the statement that most weakens the argument, we should choose the one that directly weakens it, A, rather than the one that only indirectly might weaken it, B.

C. This statement speaks of “some medicines,” but the doctor’s argument related only to herbs which have already been proven to be safe. Presumably that means they have also been tested for allergic reactions, so “these herbs” and “some medicines” would be referring to totally different groups of treatments.

D. The argument relates to whether or not taking these herbs won’t be harmful and could be helpful. The profit motive of the medicine/herb maker is irrelevant, or if anything actually strengthens his argument – the more effective the treatment, the better a money maker it is. Wanting to make money rather than caring for the patient doesn’t make it less likely to be effective, and anyway the doctor already acknowledges they aren’t effective, so this doesn’t weaken his argument.

E. This “placebo” effect does not undermine his argument. If the herbs help people because they believe in their effectiveness, then taking the herbs might help them, as the doctor argues.

A weakens the argument by saying that herb prescribing has some cost (neglecting other more effective medicines), but not clear how much 'cost', as 'many' might mean more than one, therefore cannot be used to prove that the cost of herb prescribing is significant. (how much can the statement 'many people have serious injuries while jogging' weaken the statement 'jogging is always recommended to healthy people')

E weakens the argument by saying that the benefit is only from patients' belief rather than biochemical properties. This effectively reduce the expected benefits of herbs as argued in the conclusion. The decrease in the benefit, however, is also not clear in this statement.

So both cases reduce the difference between the benefits and the costs of herb prescribing, however I prefer E which more specifically remove a benefit (biochemical properties) of herb.

_________________
Vietnam's number one online service on thit bo nhap khau
Intern
Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Posts: 4
Re: Doctor: While a few alternative medicines have dangerous  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Oct 2014, 07:28
I see that everyone writes it's A, but I don't get it. To me it looks like C...
Manager
Joined: 22 Aug 2014
Posts: 144
Re: Doctor: While a few alternative medicines have dangerous  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 May 2015, 05:41
SUNGMAT710 wrote:
Doctor: While a few alternative medicines have dangerous side effects, some, such as many herbs, have been proven safe to consume. Thus, though there is little firm evidence of medicinal effect, advocates of these herbs as remedies for serious illnesses should always be allowed to prescribe them, since their patients will not be harmed, and might be helped, by the use of these products.

Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the doctor's argument?

1.Many practitioners and patients neglect more effective conventional medicines in favor of herbal remedies.
2.Many herbal remedies are marketed with claims of proven effectiveness when in fact their effectiveness is unproven.
3.Some patients may have allergic reactions to certain medicines that have been tolerated by other patients.
4.The vast majority of purveyors of alternative medicines are driven as much by the profit motive as by a regard for their patients' health.
5.Any pain relief or other benefits of many herbs have been proven to derive entirely from patients' belief in the remedy, rather than from its biochemical properties.

OA provided..

I realize that both A and C are contenders but how to eliminate C?
Also,in conclusion the stimulus talks only about how people will be harmed.
Thus,I feel C is more appropriate.
Manager
Status: GMAT Coach
Joined: 05 Nov 2012
Posts: 141
Location: Peru
GPA: 3.98
Re: Doctor: While a few alternative medicines have dangerous  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Nov 2016, 17:18
ssriva2 wrote:
SUNGMAT710 wrote:
Doctor: While a few alternative medicines have dangerous side effects, some, such as many herbs, have been proven safe to consume. Thus, though there is little firm evidence of medicinal effect, advocates of these herbs as remedies for serious illnesses should always be allowed to prescribe them, since their patients will not be harmed, and might be helped, by the use of these products.

Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the doctor's argument?

1.Many practitioners and patients neglect more effective conventional medicines in favor of herbal remedies.
2.Many herbal remedies are marketed with claims of proven effectiveness when in fact their effectiveness is unproven.
3.Some patients may have allergic reactions to certain medicines that have been tolerated by other patients.
4.The vast majority of purveyors of alternative medicines are driven as much by the profit motive as by a regard for their patients' health.
5.Any pain relief or other benefits of many herbs have been proven to derive entirely from patients' belief in the remedy, rather than from its biochemical properties.

OA provided..

I realize that both A and C are contenders but how to eliminate C?
Also,in conclusion the stimulus talks only about how people will be harmed.
Thus,I feel C is more appropriate.

The argument itself states: "some, such as many herbs, have been proven safe to consume." If the herbs are safe, that means that they cause no harm, even if they cause allergic reactions. Therefore, C does not weaken the argument.

In A, patients will be harmed, because they will not use more effective conventional medicines, so they will keep seriously ill.
_________________
Clipper Ledgard
GMAT Coach
Re: Doctor: While a few alternative medicines have dangerous   [#permalink] 14 Nov 2016, 17:18

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 24 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by