Doctor: While a few alternative medicines have dangerous

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

Good question. The key for choice (A) being correct - as is generally the case - is the specificity of the conclusion and the main premise:

Advocates should always be allowed to prescribe herbal alternative remedies (because patients might be helped, and won't be harmed, by the use of these products)

Note how specifically that bolded portion is drawn: people won't be harmed specifically by the use of the herbal remedies. But what if there's harm that comes from elsewhere. (A) points that out - the harm isn't from using the herbal remedies themselves, it's from the "opportunity cost" of using more effective medical remedies. The herbal remedy won't likely hurt you...but using it and not taking actual medicine might give your ailment more time to become much more severe while you're essentially doing nothing to fight it.

To me that all comes down to how specifically drawn that premise is in the last sentence: you won't be harmed from the direct use of the herbal remedy...but that doesn't mean that harm won't come from making that decision.


With (E) - note that it doesn't do anything to introduce any negative side effect. It just says that the benefit isn't medical, it's psychological...but it still allows for there to be a benefit. To weaken the conclusion we need there to be some kind of harm...the conclusion is trying to say "you should always be allowed to prescribe these, because even if they're unlikely to work they don't do any damage." (E) still allows for some probability that the herbal remedies will work, and it certainly doesn't create any fear of them doing anything negative. It just attributes the minimal usefulness of the remedies to one cause versus another.

[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

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.

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.

close call between A and E. Request expert reply on this. GMATNinja VeritasKarishma

(A) Many practitioners and patients neglect more effective conventional medicines in favor of herbal remedies.
Yes this seriously weakens the argument let us hang on to it

B) Many herbal remedies are marketed with claims of proven effectiveness when in fact their effectiveness is unproven.
This fits with the doctors claim that herbs are pretty much ineffective

C) Some patients may have allergic reactions to certain medicines that have been tolerated by other patients.
This also fits in with intial assertiveness of the doctor that alternative medicines has side effcts these may be caused by the allergies inflicted on some 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.
This can be the case and this doesn't affect the argument in question these can be deemed as out of scope material

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.
Yes this also perfectly fits in line with the doctors argument
Hence IMO A

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.