Frazier and Mosteller assert that medical research could be improved

Question

Frazier and Mosteller assert that medical research could be improved by a move toward larger, simpler clinical trials of medical treatments. Currently, researchers collect far more background information on patients than is strictly required for their trials — substantially more than hospitals collect — thereby escalating costs of data collection, storage, and analysis. Although limiting information collection could increase the risk that researchers will overlook facts relevant to a study, Frazier and Mosteller contend that such risk, never entirely eliminable from research, would still be small in most studies. Only in research on entirely new treatments are new and unexpected variables likely to arise.

Frazier and Mosteller propose not only that researchers limit data collection on individual patients but also that researchers enroll more patients in clinical trials, thereby obtaining a more representative sample of the total population with the disease under study.  Often researchers restrict study participation to patients who have no ailments besides those being studied . A treatment judged successful under these ideal conditions can then be evaluated under normal conditions. Broadening the range of trial participants, Frazier and Mosteller suggest, would enable researchers to evaluate a treatment’s efficacy for diverse patients under various conditions and to evaluate its effectiveness for different patient subgroups. For example, the value of a treatment for a progressive disease may vary according to a patient’s stage of disease.  Patients’ ages  may also affect a treatment’s efficacy.   1 
 1. The passage is primarily concerned with

(A) identifying two practices in medical research that may affect the accuracy of clinical trials
(B) describing aspects of medical research that tend to drive up costs
(C) evaluating an analysis of certain shortcomings of current medical research practices
(D) describing proposed changes to the ways in which clinical trials are conducted
(E) explaining how medical researchers have traditionally conducted clinical trials and how such trials are likely to change

2 
 2. Which of the following can be inferred from the passage about a study of the category of patients referred to in lines 20 - 22  Often researchers restrict study participation to patients who have no ailments besides those being studied. ]?

(A) Its findings might have limited applicability.
(B) It would be prohibitively expensive in its attempt to create ideal conditions.
(C) It would be the best way to sample the total population of potential patients.
(D) It would allow researchers to limit information collection without increasing the risk that important variables could be overlooked.
(E) Its findings would be more accurate if it concerned treatments for a progressive disease than if it concerned treatments for a nonprogressive disease.

3 
 3. It can be inferred from the passage that a study limited to patients like those mentioned in lines 20-22  Often researchers restrict study participation to patients who have no ailments besides those being studied. ] would have which of the following advantages over the kind of study proposed by Frazier and Mosteller?

(A) It would yield more data and its findings would be more accurate.
(B) It would cost less in the long term, though it would be more expensive in its initial stages.
(C) It would limit the number of variables researchers would need to consider when evaluating the treatment under study.
(D) It would help researchers to identify subgroups of patients with secondary conditions that might also be treatable.
(E) It would enable researchers to assess the value of an experimental treatment for the average patient.

4 
 4. The author mentions  patients' ages  primarily in order to

A. identify the most critical variable differentiating subgroups of patients
B. cast doubt on the advisability of implementing Frazier and Mosteller's proposals about medical research
C. indicate why progressive diseases may require different treatments at different stages
D. illustrate a point about the value of enrolling a wide range of patients in clinical trials
E. substantiate an argument about the problems inherent in enrolling large numbers of patients in clinical trials

5 
 5. According to the passage, which of the following describes a result of the way in which researchers generally conduct clinical trials?

(A) They expend resources on the storage of information likely to be irrelevant to the study they are conducting.
(B) They sometimes compromise the accuracy of their findings by collecting and analyzing more information than is strictly required for their trials.
(C) They avoid the risk of overlooking variables that might affect their findings, even though doing so raises their research costs.
(D) Because they attempt to analyze too much information, they overlook facts that could emerge as relevant to their studies.
(E) In order to approximate the conditions typical of medical treatment, they base their methods of information collection on those used by hospitals.

RC00312-01
RC00312-03
RC00312-04
RC00312-05
RC00312-06

EMPOWERgmatVerbal · Accepted Answer

Total Passage & Question Breakdown:

Frazier and Mosteller assert that medical research could be improved by a move toward larger, simpler clinical trials of medical treatments. Currently, researchers collect far more background information on patients than is strictly required for their trials-substantially more than hospitals collect-thereby escalating costs of data collection, storage, and analysis. Although limiting information collection could increase the risk that researchers will overlook facts relevant to a study, Frazier and Mosteller contend that such risk, never entirely eliminable from research, would still be small in most studies. Only in research on entirely new treatments are new and unexpected variables likely to arise.

Frazier and Mosteller propose not only that researchers limit data collection on individual patients but also that researchers enroll more patients in clinical trials, thereby obtaining a more representative sample of the total population with  the disease under study.  Often researchers restrict study participation to patients who have no ailments besides those being studied.  A treatment  judged successful under these ideal conditions can then be evaluated under normal conditions. Broadening the range of trial participants, Frazier and Mosteller suggest, would enable researchers to evaluate a treatment's efficacy for diverse patients under various conditions and to evaluate its effectiveness for different patient subgroups. For example, the value of a treatment for a progressive disease may vary according to a patient's stage of disease. Patients' ages may also affect a treatment's efficacy.    Passage Outline (Ladder)  
1 = (Discussion) Current (more background) vs F&M (large & simple)
2 = (Discussion) Benefits of F&M

Passage Analysis  
This passage describes a proposed new way to approach clinical trials that appears to simplify and streamline the process and that allows for a much larger sample that could include a more diverse pool of patients. The passage also contrasts the proposal with the current way clinical trials are conducted. Although the passage appears to present the more favorable aspects of the proposal, the passage is still descriptive in nature, but if you made your ladder with a =/+ for either paragraph, I certainly wouldn’t fault that.

2015 Question 99
2016 Question 102 
  Question & Explanation:    The passage is primarily concerned with
Type: Passage Purpose
As we noted in our breakdown of the passage, the purpose of this passage is to discuss the Frazier and Mosteller proposal.

A. identifying two practices in medical research that may affect the accuracy of clinical trials
The proposal has two aspects, but that doesn't necessarily equate to two different practices, so there's our first problem with A. The other issue is that we're not given any indication as to which of the two clinical trial methods (current or the F&M proposal) is any more accurate. In other words, accuracy is not necessarily a factor here at all. The F&M proposal centers on efficiency and simplification.

B. describing aspects of medical research that tend to drive up costs
Yes the passage discusses how current practices tend to drive up costs, but can that be described as the primary purpose of the passage? No way. This is a classic case of something that happened but that’s way too narrow in focus.

C. evaluating an analysis of certain shortcomings of current medical research practices
This option has two problems: 1, it literally says evaluating and analysis. Is this passage evaluating analysis? No, it's discussing the how the proposed F&M method could help improve efficiency of clinical trials. Two, the discussion on the shortcomings of current research practices is only a portion of the focus of this passage. The passage also discusses some of the benefits that might accompany the F&M approach.
 
 D.  describing proposed changes to the ways in which clinical trials are conducted. 
Bingo. Point of this passage is to discuss the changes called for in the F&M proposal

E. explaining how medical researchers have traditionally conducted clinical trials and how such trials are likely to change
This is definitely the runner-up option. The passage does explain how medical researchers have traditionally conducted clinical trials. The first half of this option is correct in that regard, but do we know that the F&M proposal is likely to be implemented? So how do we know how such trials are likely to change? We don’t, and that’s why this option is wrong. This is a classic half right/half wrong option, and notice how the first half is pretty lovely? That’s the elegance of this type of half right/half wrong bait. GMAC knows that test-takers who lack thoroughness will be quick on the trigger to pick this option. There’s a good lesson here. 
  Answer:    D

2015 Question 100
2016 Question 103 
  Question & Explanation:    Type: Inference
Before we even think about heading to the options, we need to make sure we’re clear on what we’re asked to infer something about. Lines 21-23 (highlighted): Often researchers restrict study participation to patients who have no ailments besides those being studied. Which method does this snippet refer to? The current practice, and not F&M. We know that the current method targets exactly those who perfectly suffer from an illness rather than the population in general. Now that we’re clear on that, let’s check out our options.

Which of the following can be inferred from the passage about a study of the category of patients referred to in lines 21-23 (highlighted as will be done on the official software)?

(A)  Its findings might have limited applicability. 
Yes, this has to be true. Do we know that the current method’s findings WILL have limited applicability? No. BUT, do we know that they MIGHT? Yes, we can infer that it’s possible the findings might have limited applicability since we’re told that in F&M’s approach the trial would include groups well beyond those that would be covered in the current approach. This option is also a beautiful example of how a GMAT understanding of the word “might” (>0%), gives us an advantage over other test-takers.

(B) It would be prohibitively expensive in its attempt to create ideal conditions.
Yes, the current method tends to be more expensive, but is it prohibitively expensive? We have no support for such an extreme statement, and in fact, we can actually infer that the current method is not prohibitively expensive since it is actually used. Prohibitively expensive would mean that these studies are literally too expensive to take place at all. Definitely wrong.

(C) It would be the best way to sample the total population of potential patients.
This option is a smack in the face for people who weren’t careful enough to confirm which group lines 21-23 refers to. People who select this option think that it’s referring to F&M. BUT, wait. Even if that were true, do we actually even know that F&M is the BEST? No. Double trouble, and gone.

(D) It would allow researchers to limit information collection without increasing the risk that important variables could be overlooked.
Once more, this option sounds like those who think this question is referring to the F&M study. Even so, it appears that the F&M approach would be more likely of the two to miss important variables, so this option is a wacky mix of both methods, and definitely incorrect.

(E) Its findings would be more accurate if it concerned treatments for a progressive disease than if it concerned treatments for a nonprogressive disease.
Utter hogwash. Let’s put this option in proper context: The findings of the current method (not F&M) would be more accurate(?) if it concerned treatments for a progressive disease than if it concerned treatments for a nonprogressive disease (?). We’re asked about the current method, and the example about progressive disease was used to show an upside of the F&M method. Not only does this option deal with the wrong method, but also do we know that accuracy is boosted one way or another whether the study focuses on progressive or nonprogressive treatments? Not at all. Reading comprehension options will repeat information actually mentioned in the passage as a brutal punishment for those who merely skimmed through the passage. This option showcases that feature of RC questions. 
  Answer:    A

2015 Question 101
2016 Question 104 
  Question & Explanation:    Type: Inference
OK, now we need to find the option that presents a benefit of the current method over F&M. Again the current method mentioned in lines 21-23 (highlighted) is one in which the variables are restricted to the illness in question.

It can be inferred from the passage that a study limited to patients like those mentioned in lines 21-23 would have which of the following advantages over the kind of study proposed by Frazier and Mosteller?

(A) It would yield more data and its findings would be more accurate.
We have zero ability to ultimately comment on accuracy. That’s an unsupported leap.

(B) It would cost less in the long term, though it would be more expensive in its initial stages.
A 180. We’re specifically told in P1 that the traditional method escalates costs, and in contrast F&M could help limit those costs. We’re not given any indication about long-term costs. Unsupported.

(C)  It would limit the number of variables researchers would need to consider when evaluating the treatment under study. 
Yes. Again the current method mentioned in lines 21-23 is the one in which the variables are restricted to the illness in question. The current method tries to seek out a pure sample (i.e. remove/limit other variables).

(D) It would help researchers to identify subgroups of patients with secondary conditions that might also be treatable.
Wrong group. This option appears to highlight an advantage of F&M (identifying subgroups), rather than the current method described in lines 21-23.

(E) It would enable researchers to assess the value of an experimental treatment for the average patient.
This option also describes an advantage of F&M rather than the current method, although this option clouds that distinction a little bit better by using the paraphrase “average” instead of the “diverse” sample language used in the passage. The current method attempts to uncover value for patients with a specific set of criteria. 
  Answer:    C

2015 Question 102
2016 Question 105 
  Question & Explanation:    Type: Item Purpose
This question is asking us to explain what the author was seeking to accomplish by mentioning patient age. Here it is at the very end of the passage: For example, the value of a treatment for a progressive disease may vary according to a patient's stage of disease. Patients' ages may also affect a treatment's efficacy. Both of these examples were provided to highlight how having a broader spectrum of people in the study could help uncover factors that might not be revealed in a more traditional trial. Let’s find our right option.

The author mentions patients' ages primarily in order to

A. identify the most critical variable differentiating subgroups of patients
Although the mention of different ages adds to the value of including a broader array of patients, we’re in zero position to conclude that the author mentioned ages to point to the MOST critical variable. Gone.

B. cast doubt on the advisability of implementing Frazier and Mosteller's proposals about medical research
180 because if anything, these examples are introduced to list some possible benefits of F&M---not to cast doubt on it.

C. indicate why progressive diseases may require different treatments at different stages
This option foolishly combines the two different examples. First the author mentions how F&M could help assess the value of a treatment for progressive diseases, and then second, the author also points out that F&M could be handy to measure effectiveness over a wider range of ages. Those are two distinct examples. This answer makes the mistake of saying that the author was mentioning different ages as an aspect of progressive illness.

D.  illustrate a point about the value of enrolling a wide range of patients in clinical trials 
Yes. Plain and simple. Perfect. Both of these examples, including age, are used to highlight how the F&M approach can help uncover information about a broader range of patients.

E. substantiate an argument about the problems inherent in enrolling large numbers of patients in clinical trials
Another 180. The author is using the age example to point out a potential benefit of F&M---not to provide proof of an argument against F&M. Nonsense. We can tell the author did the opposite. 
  Answer:    D

2015 Question 103
2016 Question 106 
  Question & Explanation:    Type: Detail.
This question is asking us to uncover a result of the current way of doing clinical trials. Now, that could include the drawbacks mentioned (cost, data storage, etc., or the ability to zero in on a specific group). Let’s find it.

According to the passage, which of the following describes a result of the way in which researchers generally conduct clinical trials?

(A)  They expend resources on the storage of information likely to be irrelevant to the study they are conducting.
Yes. The passage says: “Currently, researchers collect far more background information on patients than is strictly required for their trials.”

(B) They sometimes compromise the accuracy of their findings by collecting and analyzing more information than is strictly required for their trials.
Yes, researchers collect and analyze more information than is strictly required for their trials, but there is absolutely no mention or ability to even infer that they’re compromising the accuracy of their findings in the process. Chuck it.

(C) They avoid the risk of overlooking variables that might affect their findings, even though doing so raises their research costs.
Dead wrong. The passage states that the risk of overlooking variables is never entirely eliminable from research, so to say “avoid” is an extreme misfire.

(D) Because they attempt to analyze too much information, they overlook facts that could emerge as relevant to their studies.
This option is another misfire. The passage tells us that researchers gather more information than is relevant, but that doesn’t mean that the information goes overlooked. That’s a crazy leap. In fact, one would imagine that the information can only be deemed irrelevant after it is first looked at.

(E) In order to approximate the conditions typical of medical treatment, they base their methods of information collection on those used by hospitals.
This is the sloppiest option of the entire bunch. Absolutely nowhere does the passage mention that the current method is based on information collection methods used by hospitals. This is option is a pure hogwash filler option. 
  Answer:    A

GMATNinjaTwo · Answer

Addressing a few outstanding questions on this passage...

"Often researchers restrict study participation to patients who have no ailments besides those being studied". The researchers first evaluate the treatment under ideal conditions (smaller range of patients, fewer variables) and THEN evaluate the treatment under normal conditions (broader range of subjects, more variables, such as the presence of other ailments). The advantage of this approach is that it limits the number of variables researchers need to consider when evaluating the treatment under study; hence, choice C is correct. Frazier and Mosteller, on the other hand, recommended STARTING the research with a broad range of diverse patients. We can infer that the disadvantage to this approach is that the researchers will have to consider a greater number of variables; the advantage to this approach is that it "would enable researchers to evaluate a treatment's efficacy for diverse patients under various conditions and to evaluate its effectiveness for different patient subgroups."

Yes,  deepachr , you are right: "Although limiting information collection could increase the risk that researchers will overlook facts relevant to a study, Frazier and Mosteller contend that such risk, never entirely eliminable from research, would still be small in most studies." This implies that this risk will be  higher  if the changes proposed by Frazier and Mosteller are implemented, but that the risk is still present (though to a lesser extent) in current clinical trials (such risks are "never entirely eliminable from research", so they cannot be avoided).

cmatkar · Answer

For 103, I chose option D. Can anyone kindly explain me why is D wrong ?

EMPOWERgmatAllenT · Answer

Hi cmatkar,

I'm happy to help explain why D is incorrect.

GMAC loves to test our ability to distinguish different groups mentioned in RC passages. Question 103 is asking about how trials are generally conducted by who? And when? Researchers, CURRENTLY. Being clear who the question is referring to will help us make our call as to what the right answer is and spot why D is wrong.

Here's the question again:

103. According to the passage, which of the following   describes a result of the way in which researchers generally conduct clinical trials  ?
(A) They expend resources on the storage of information likely to be irrelevant to the study they are conducting. 
 This is our answer since the key problem with the current clinical trial method is that it results in WAY too much data, which is costly to store.  From the passage: "Currently, researchers collect far more background information on patients than is strictly required for their trials-substantially more than hospitals collect-thereby escalating costs of data collection, storage, and analysis"

(D) Because they attempt to analyze too much information, they overlook facts that could emerge as relevant to their studies.
 Is the problem that they attempt to analyze this information or is it that the problem is there is too much extraneous information to analyze? This answer is describing a problem, but not the one actually, and literally described in the passage.

EMPOWERgmat, calls answers like this Warps. They have the right flavor, but they twist the information enough as to be completely wrong.

WillGetIt · Answer

This is regarding question 100.

Option C states that it is best way to sample total population of potential participants.

Can't we conclude C from lines 18-20, stating that "researchers enrol.... Thereby obtaining a more representative sample ".

I got trapped in option A and C, finally selected C because option A mention about " limited applicability of findings" while lines 18-21 only talks about "MORE representative sample"????

This does not mean that findings are of limited applicability.

Could someone please explain to me.

Thank you.

Posted from my mobile device

saumya12 · Answer

Actually Question 100 clearly asks us to limit ourselves to "bold section" (lines 21-23) and what is the "inference" of these lines, according to the passage. According to the passage, because researchers "restrict" study participation to only "certain" patients, this is "not" enabling researchers to evaluate a treatment's efficacy for diverse patients under various conditions and to evaluate its effectiveness for different patient subgroups.

This clearly means that currently, the findings of the research have limited applicability. This is what A says.

Coming to C, it says that "it would be the best way to sample the total population of potential patients". One thing that struck me about this optio was the term: "potential" patients. Not sure what "potential" means; my understanding is that "potential" patients would mean people who currently are not patients (means they do have a disease currently), but have a "potential" (say "genetically") to develop that disease. But, there is nothing about "potential patients" metnioned in the passage.

What do you think about this?

EMPOWERgmatVerbal · Answer

Sure, I'd be happy to offer you some guidance, vikasbansal227.

Here's the issue: it's critical to understand which party question 100 is asking us to make an inference about. Is is Frazier & Mosteller's proposal, or the traditional way?

Frazier and Mosteller propose not only that researchers limit data collection on individual patients but also that researchers enroll more patients in clinical trials, thereby obtaining a more representative sample of the total population with the disease under study.  Often researchers restrict study participation to patients who have no ailments besides those being studied .

Question 100 is actually asking about the current, or traditional way of designing clinical trials. Now, given that the traditional way of building a sample in a clinical trial is to often "restrict study participation to patients who have no ailments besides those being studied". Take a look at the difference between A and C in that light:

100) Which of the following can be inferred from the passage about a study of the category of patients referred to in lines 21-23 (bold section)?
(A) Its findings might have limited applicability. 
 If the results only relate to those suffering from an ailment rather than the population in general, then it's findings MIGHT (key inference question word) have limited applicability. That has to be true. 100%

(C) It would be the best way to sample the total population of potential patients. 
 This is a trap answer for those who think question 100 is asking us about the Frazier and Mosteller proposal, but as we know, it's not. According to the passage, we can't infer that the traditional way of conducting clinical trials is THE BEST WAY to sample the total population of POTENTIAL patients, because the traditional approach is only to sample those with the illness. That wouldn't include POTENTIAL patients.. Get rid of C.

deepachr · Answer

For Question 103, why is Option A better than Option C? Is it because it says it avoids the risk of overlooking variables ... which may not be true because all variables cannot be accounted for through information gatheirng?

BillyZ · Answer

Frazier and Mosteller assert that medical research could be improved by a move toward larger, simpler clinical trials of medical treatments. Currently, researchers collect far more background information on patients than is strictly required for their trials — substantially more than hospitals collect — thereby escalating costs of data collection, storage, and analysis. Although limiting information collection could increase the risk that researchers will overlook facts relevant to a study, Frazier and Mosteller contend that such risk, never entirely eliminable from research, would still be small in most studies. Only in research on entirely new treatments are new and unexpected variables likely to arise.

Frazier and Mosteller propose not only that researchers limit data collection on individual patients but also that researchers enroll more patients in clinical trials, thereby obtaining a more representative sample of the total population with the disease under study.  Often researchers restrict study participation to patients who have no ailments besides those being studied . A treatment judged successful under these ideal conditions can then be evaluated under normal conditions. Broadening the range of trial participants, Frazier and Mosteller suggest, would enable researchers to evaluate a treatment’s efficacy for diverse patients under various conditions and to evaluate its effectiveness for different patient subgroups. For example, the value of a treatment for a progressive disease may vary according to a patient’s stage of disease.  Patients’ ages  may also affect a treatment’s efficacy.  1. The passage is primarily concerned with

(A) identifying two practices in medical research that may affect the accuracy of clinical trials

(B) describing aspects of medical research that tend to drive up costs

(C)  evaluating  an analysis of certain shortcomings of current medical research practices

(D) describing proposed changes to the ways in which clinical trials are conducted

(E) explaining how medical researchers have traditionally conducted clinical trials and how such trials are  likely  to change

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION 
 Passage: Clinical Trials

Question: Primary Purpose

The Simple Story

Frazier and Mosteller propose that changing clinical trials could improve medical research. They propose two specific changes. First, they suggest limiting the amount of data collected about patients to save costs. Second, they suggest enrolling more patients in trials to obtain a more representative sample of patients.

Sample Passage Map

Here is one way to map this passage. (Note: abbreviate as desired!)

F+M: change clin trials

1) Less data à save $

2) More patients à more represent

Step 1: Identify the Question

The words primarily concerned with in the question stem indicate that this is a Primary Purpose, or Main Idea, question.

Step 2: Find the Support

For Main Idea questions, the answer will come from your overall understanding of the passage and your passage map.

Step 3: Predict an Answer

Remind yourself of your brief summary of the passage.

The passage presents two specific changes to clinical trials that have been suggested as ways to improve medical research.

Step 4: Eliminate and Find a Match

(A) The passage does suggest that limiting the patients selected for trials (second paragraph) may limit the applicability of results to broad patient populations. The other concern presented (the collection of excessive data), however, affects costs; it does not influence accuracy.

(B) The collection of data is discussed as a factor that drives up costs. The second concern discussed, the restriction of patients selected for studies, is not discussed related to costs. It’s likely that the change that Frazier and Mostellar propose in the second paragraph (larger clinical trials) would increase costs—but that is not the focus of this suggestion.

(C) The passage does discuss potential shortcomings of clinical trials, but the passage does not provide an   evaluation   of this analysis. Rather, the passage simply presents F & M’s proposed changes.

(D) CORRECT . Two specific changes to clinical trials are proposed in the passage.

(E) Current practices and proposed changes for clinical trials are discussed in the passage. The passage does not address whether the proposed changes are   likely   to happen.

aviejay · Answer

Question number 5:
I chose C

In option A, nowhere in the first paragraph has it been mentioned or trying to mean that "information likely to be irrelevant to the study". Even from the statement "Only in research on entirely new treatments are new and unexpected variables likely to arise.", one cannot deduce the fact that "information likely to be irrelevant to the study"

I chose C because from the statement "Although limiting information collection could increase the risk that researchers will overlook facts relevant to a study", we can understand that the researchers could be trying to overlook facts relevant to a study by collection more information.

Please explain where is my understanding wrong.

GMATNinja · Answer

As described towards the end of  this post , collecting extra information will never  eliminate  the risk of overlooking facts relevant to the study.

So even though researchers currently collect far more background information on patients than is strictly required, they do not  avoid  the risk of overlooking variables that might affect their findings. According to the passage, no matter how much information is collected, that risk will never be eliminated. So (E) is not correct.

As for choice (A), we are specifically told that "researchers collect far more background information on patients than is strictly required for their trials." From that, we can immediately infer that they collect information that is not needed and thus likely to be irrelevant.

Taking it a bit further, according to the author, "limiting information collection  could  increase the risk that researchers will overlook facts relevant to a study." However, even if information collection is reduced, the risk of overlooking facts relevant to the study will still be small. This  suggests  that increasing the amount of information collected does NOT significantly decrease the risk of overlooking facts  relevant  to the study.

So we can infer that increasing the amount of information collected would not significantly increase the amount of  relevant  data. This implies that most of the additional information is irrelevant.

In other words, if you increase the amount of information collected, most of it will likely be irrelevant. Thus, most of that information is LIKELY to be irrelevant to the study.

I hope that helps!

bpdulog · Answer

2. Which of the following can be inferred from the passage about a study of the category of patients referred to in lines 20 - 22  ?

(A) Its findings might have limited applicability.

(B) It would be prohibitively expensive in its attempt to create ideal conditions.

(C) It would be the best way to sample the total population of potential patients.

(D) It would allow researchers to limit information collection without increasing the risk that important variables could be overlooked.

(E) Its findings would be more accurate if it concerned treatments for a progressive disease than if it concerned treatments for a nonprogressive disease.

The OG explanation states: "The passage then states
that researchers often restrict (lines 20–22) their trials to certain types of patients, therefore limiting the
applicability of their findings."

I have re-read 15-22 and do not see any mention of limited applicability for these findings?

They are talking about adding more patients to the study, in addition the ones already being studied and the control group, so B looks more correct to me

GMATNinja · Answer

Question #2 refers to a study in which researchers  restrict  study participation to patients who have no ailments besides those being studied.

In such a study, researchers are looking at IDEAL conditions. If the treatment is successful, researchers can THEN evaluate the treatment under normal conditions. So right away, this implies that the restricted study does NOT give us information about the treatment under normal conditions. Further research is needed to test the treatment under normal conditions. The findings of the restricted study are only applicable under ideal conditions. This implies that the findings are  limited  in scope.

The author then contrasts such studies with studies in which patient participation is NOT restricted. This would allow researchers to obtain "a more representative sample of the total population."

So in an unrestricted study, researchers can study  diverse  patients and  various  conditions. In a restricted study, researchers can only study the restricted population under ideal conditions.

Although not stated directly, we can infer that the findings of a restricted study are limited in applicability when compared to the findings of an unrestricted study.

I hope that helps!

jabhatta2 · Answer

Hi  GMATNinja

I have a follow up on Q5..

On option A) -- the term "resources expended" ... I read this and eliminated the answer choice based on this term specifically, not anything else ... When I read the term, I immediately thought about "Manpower" or "Human Resources" actually expending their time and energy in order to store information ... How can you be sure that "Expended resources" refers to extra costs and not manpower / time or energy ..

On the other hand, I liked C for the following two terms 
 
They avoid the Risk   and

"MIGHT"

Doesn't these terms suggest the answer choice is flexible ...The answer does not use extreme language like , it ALWAYS avoids the risks blah blah

It seems these two terms indicate flexibility that Frazier and Mosteller contend that such risk were never entirely eliminable from research

GMATNinja · Answer

jabhatta@umail.iu.edu , let's talk through your concerns with (A) first:

When you read through an answer choice (or passage, for that matter), be careful about paraphrasing or rewording the language. Could "resources" mean "human resources"? Sure, but it could also mean money, or space, or any number of other factors. If the answer choice doesn't specify one or another, bringing in that outside knowledge or bias is not going to help you answer the question as written.

In the passage, the author states that collecting more patient information than necessary increases the " costs  of data collection, storage, and analysis." These are the costs that correspond to the "resources expended" mentioned in answer choice (A).

One other note: it is true that one word can change the meaning of an answer choice, but you should always read the answer choice as a whole and make a decision based on the overall context. Hyper-focusing on specific words without understanding the broader logic of the answer choice will lead to errors. This showed up again in your analysis of answer (C), so let's take a look at that:

Again, the word "might" by itself does not make the answer choice correct. You need to understand the answer choice as a whole in order to make a decision about it.

Here's (C) again:

The first part states that the researchers " avoid  the risk of overlooking variables." This contradicts the information in the passage, which states that the risk is "never entirely eliminable from research." A different modifier on  this  portion of the answer choice would indeed change the meaning of the statement, but you have to look at exactly the words that are given.

Moving on to the next piece: the "might" does introduce some flexibility, as you say, but about what exactly? About " variables that  (might)  affect their findings ." When taken in context of the first part of the statement, this is just saying that the researcher are avoiding variables that could be relevant. This is still contradicts the piece of the passage quoted above.

Overall, it may be tempting to jump at a particular modifier, but understanding the statement in its entirety is one key to nailing the question.

I hope this helps!

Akshit03 · Answer

Hi, regarding the first part, what I fail to understand is how does it limit the number of variables when later they go on to do it under normal conditions(which involves greater variables) so this is also using a lot of variables?

GMATNinja · Answer

Question 101 asks us to infer an advantage that "a study limited to patients like those mentioned in lines 21-23" would have over another type of study. The patients in question "have no ailments besides those being studied," which limits the number of variables that might affect the outcome of the study.

It is true that the researchers then go on to include more variables in subsequent studies -- but the question  does not ask about those subsequent studies . Because the question only focuses on studies with a limited type of patient, we can infer that the advantage of such studies is that they "limit the number of variables researchers would need to consider." (C) is the correct answer for question 101.

I hope that helps!

jabhatta2 · Answer

Hi  GMATNinja

I re-did this same problem and again i chose C. While I agree A is right, i am struggling to eliminate C outright

The OA solution to eliminating C is  The passage states that the risk of overlooking variables is never entirely eliminable from research, so to say "avoid" is an extreme misfire.

BUT When I read answer choice C, i don't get the impression that the answer choice is referring to "ALL" variables being entirely eliminable. The language in answer choice C is referring to whether variables that may affect the study in question MAY BE OVERLOOKED OR NOT

Furthermore, answer choice C is inferred in the following point (in pink) in the passage

Although limiting information collection could increase the risk that researchers will overlook facts relevant to a study , Frazier and Mosteller contend that such risk, never entirely eliminable from research, would still be small in most studies

Reading the pink -- i get the impression that Fraziers changes will limit information and thus increase the risk of overlooking facts relevant to the study

Hence the inference : current methodology, albeit more expensive has LESS chance of overlooking variables relevant to the study

Any assistance would be appreciated

GMATNinja · Answer

You say choice (C) "is referring to whether variables that may affect the study in question MAY BE OVERLOOKED OR NOT."

But that is   not what the choice says in its own wording  . One more time, here is the precise wording of choice (C):

This choice, put as simply as possible, says, "They avoid the risk."

OK, what risk? That would be "the risk of overlooking variables that might affect their findings."

Good to know, but the fundamental statement we're trying to confirm here is still "They avoid the risk."

This language is black-and-white. Researchers either avoid the risk, or they don't.

Consequently, we can keep (C) if the passage itself implies that researchers  entirely  avoid this risk, as a result of the way they generally conduct clinical trials. That means  any  information in the passage contradicting this statement gives us immediate cause to eliminate the choice and move on.

Now, let's revisit the passage. We know that the way researchers generally conduct clinical trials is by collecting far more background information on patients than is strictly required. Next, as you point out, the author writes:

"Although limiting information collection could increase the risk that researchers will overlook facts relevant to a study, Frazier and Mosteller contend that such risk, never entirely eliminable from research, would still be small in most studies."

Reading precisely, this sentence tells us that:

Limiting information (which would NOT be how researchers generally conduct clinical trials) could increase the risk. 
  Even if researchers limit information collection, such risk would still be small in most studies — because it's  never  entirely eliminable from the research.

Right here, the passage tells us that the risk of researchers overlooking facts relevant to a study can NEVER be eliminated, regardless of how the trials are conducted.

This implies that researchers  cannot avoid  the risk of overlooking variables that might affect their findings — whether they stick with the way they generally conduct trials or adopt Frazier and Mosteller's approach instead.

This is all we need to eliminate (C) outright.

I hope this helps!

Frazier and Mosteller assert that medical research could be improved

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 Reading Comprehension (RC) Questions

Frazier and Mosteller assert that medical research could be improved

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