Last visit was: 08 Sep 2026, 08:14

It is currently 08 Sep 2026, 08:14

Toolkit

Practice Tests

Critical Reasoning (CR)

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
Your Progress

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

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Go to My Error Log Learn more

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Sep 09
Masters' Spotlight Fair
07:00 AM PDT
-
10:00 AM PDT
Meet AdComs and explore top Master’s programs - MiM, MiF, MSc, MSBA and more. - Application Fee Waivers - Free 1-Week of GMAT Club Tests: - Master's Application Toolkit - Grand Prize Giveaway
Sep 04
BIG NEWS! We’ve been nominated, and we’d love your vote!
10:00 AM EDT
-
11:59 PM EDT
We’ve worked incredibly hard to build TTP into the best test prep experience possible, and it would mean a lot to us to win Newsweek’s 2026 Readers’ Choice Award for Best Test Prep. If TTP has helped you, we’d be incredibly grateful for your vote.
Sep 08
GMAT 535 to 695 with Solid Jump in Quant & DI! Pragati’s Inspiring Comeback
12:30 AM EDT
-
01:30 AM EDT
Looking for your GMAT motivation to break through the score plateau? Pragati improved her score by massive 160 points with strategic guidance and hard-work! Find out how personalized mentorship and a strong mindset can turn GMAT struggles into success.
Sep 09
How Aman Bounced Back from 3 MBA Rejections to Get Into Cambridge
10:00 AM PDT
-
11:00 AM PDT
Three MBA applications. Three rejections. No interview invites. A year later, Aman was admitted to Cambridge Judge, SMU, and IMD. In this episode of MBA Admit Stories, Aman shares how he rebuilt his MBA application...
Sep 10
GMAT 705 in 30 days: Best Study Strategy for Working Professionals
01:00 AM EDT
-
02:00 AM EDT
Learn how Keshav, a Chartered Accountant, scored an impressive 705 on GMAT in just 30 days with GMATWhiz's expert guidance. In this video, he shares preparation tips and strategies that worked for him, including the mock, time management, and more.
Sep 10
Start your free trial!
08:00 PM PDT
-
09:00 PM PDT
Free- full-length test + 15 concept videos + 150+ short videos + study plan!

Back to Forum

Create Topic

GMAT Club World Cup 2026 (Day 6): A pharmaceutical company recently

1 2 3 4

geocircle

Joined: 14 Dec 2025

Last visit: 27 Jul 2026

Posts: 150

Own Kudos:

143

[1]

Posts: 150

Kudos: 143

[1]

14 Jul 2026, 06:10

Kudos

Bookmarks

A It only highlights that people with severe pain improved more than those with mild pain, but the average across everyone was still low.

B Almost everyone followed the schedule perfectly. This doesn't account for the poor average results.

C This actually backs up the researcher's view, since it shows the drug didn't outperform a placebo treatment.

D Right answer. This attacks the conclusion directly by revealing that the drug took time to build up in the body.

E This only puts the drug in context with other treatments, but it doesn't prove this drug gave substantial relief.

Answer D

Reon

Joined: 16 Sep 2025

Last visit: 08 Sep 2026

Posts: 297

Own Kudos:

201

[1]

Given Kudos: 20

GMAT Focus 1: 575 Q78 V78 DI79 Verified score

Posts: 297

Kudos: 201

[1]

14 Jul 2026, 06:27

Kudos

Bookmarks

12 week trial - all cmplted
C- drug provided little relief, R- data showing avg reduction in pain scores

A. The drug has shown effect on some people. Little weakening. Keep it
B. States what already stated in argument.
C. Different treatment method is irrelevant.
D. If the drug effects were little in first eight weeks and sharply rose during last four weeks, it could be reason the avg data shows modest results but in actual it has shown better results. It weakens the conclusion. CORRECT
E. Irrelevant

D

topgmat25

Joined: 15 Dec 2025

Last visit: 27 Jul 2026

Posts: 150

Own Kudos:

139

[1]

Posts: 150

Kudos: 139

[1]

14 Jul 2026, 06:35

Kudos

Bookmarks

A Those with severe pain had greater improvement than those with moderate pain, but the overall average reduction in pain scores remains unchanged.

B It would suggest the drug should have performed better, making the modest average harder to dismiss.

C This reinforces the researcher's argument. It supports the view that the effect of the painkiller was minimal.

D The late surge in improvement means the overall average understates the drug's true benefit. Correct answer.

E It only explains why modest results might be expected, not that they are meaningful.

The answer is D

MANASH94

Joined: 25 Jun 2025

Last visit: 07 Sep 2026

Posts: 165

Own Kudos:

121

[1]

Given Kudos: 27

Location: India

Schools: IIM IIM ISB

GMAT Focus 1: 525 Q80 V76 DI72 Verified score

GPA: 2.9

Products:

Schools: IIM IIM ISB

GMAT Focus 1: 525 Q80 V76 DI72 Verified score

Posts: 165

Kudos: 121

[1]

14 Jul 2026, 06:43

Kudos

Bookmarks

Premise is that the overall 12 week's reduction was only modest and the conclusion states that the drug provide little impact relief.
The researchers as per me mistakes that low average means the drug performed blow par at all times.

To weaken lets evaluate the options:
A. Higher initial pain scores impact vs low initial pain impact doesn't help us guarantee whether the result was robust or not. (Incorrect).
B. Mentioned that nearly all participants completed the completed course compared to a minor fraction of people who didn't doesn't help us relate with the conclusion. Incorrect.
C. It strengthens the researcher's points. (Incorrect).
D. States that drug takes 8 weeks to start its effect this attacks the 12 week's average point and weakens the argument. (Correct)
E. All other drugs' results are not related to this since this drug may or may not have similar properties. (Incorrect)

IMO Ans is D.

Bunuel

A pharmaceutical company recently completed a 12-week clinical trial of a new painkiller, in which nearly all patients completed the full dosing schedule without interruption. A researcher analyzing the results concluded that the drug had provided little meaningful relief to patients, pointing to data showing that the average reduction in pain scores across the full course of the trial was only modest.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the researcher's conclusion?

(A) Among patients who entered the trial with the highest initial pain scores, average reductions by the end of the study were greater than those observed in patients who began with only mild or moderate pain.

(B) Patients who adhered to the prescribed dosing schedule without interruption reported substantially greater pain reductions than those who missed at least one dose during the trial.

(C) Patients who were given a placebo rather than the drug reported similarly modest reductions in pain scores over the same 12-week period.

(D) Pain score reductions among patients in the trial were negligible during the first eight weeks but accelerated sharply in the final four weeks as the drug reached its full therapeutic concentration in the bloodstream.

(E) The chronic pain condition targeted by the drug is one for which all currently available treatments have historically produced only modest average reductions in standardized pain scores.

This question was provided by GMAT Club
for the GMAT World Cup Competition

Win over $30,000 in prizes such as Courses, Tests, Private Tutoring, and more

⚠️ Important: GMAT Club does not allow AI-generated posts. AI-generated solutions are not eligible for kudos, and users who post them may face moderation action, including a ban.

JollyScale

Joined: 04 Jul 2026

Last visit: 28 Aug 2026

Posts: 55

Own Kudos:

[1]

Location: India

Schools: HBS '27 CBS '27 Stanford '27

GPA: 6.87/7

WE:Marketing (Finance: Diversified Financial Services)

Products:

Schools: HBS '27 CBS '27 Stanford '27

Posts: 55

Kudos: 49

[1]

14 Jul 2026, 06:48

Kudos

Bookmarks

researcher says "avg pain drop was small = drug barely works." we need something that shows the avg was misleading, not that the drug is actually weak

A doesn't fix the average issue just splits by severity.
B: irrelevant, bcuz almost nobody missed the doses
C: actually makes researcher look more right
E' doesn't challenge that relief was modest just spreads blame

D is the ans: if the drug barely did anything for 8 weeks then suddenly worked hard in the last 4, then avg over all 12 weeks drags the number down and hides the real effect.

Bunuel

This question was provided by GMAT Club
for the GMAT World Cup Competition

Win over $30,000 in prizes such as Courses, Tests, Private Tutoring, and more

⚠️ Important: GMAT Club does not allow AI-generated posts. AI-generated solutions are not eligible for kudos, and users who post them may face moderation action, including a ban.

mehtyas

Joined: 27 May 2025

Last visit: 07 Sep 2026

Posts: 74

Own Kudos:

Given Kudos: 842

Location: India

Concentration: Finance, Strategy

Products:

Posts: 74

Kudos: 61

14 Jul 2026, 06:55

Kudos

Bookmarks

The argument states that nearly all patients completed the dosing schedule, but the average reduction in pain was only modest. Therefore, the drug provided little meaningful relief.

We need to weaken the claim by showing that a modest reduction doesn't justify this conclusion.

I think Answer C does that - like if the placebo group showed the same improvement, the trial does not show the drug caused pain reduction.

Looking at the other options:
A - one group improved more than another, but the overall average could still be modest.
B - nearly all patients completed the dosing schedule, so missed doses are unlikely to explain the results.
D - strengthens instead - suggests that the drug becomes more effective over time.
E - weak comparison - says modest improvements are common but does not challenge that this drug actually caused the improvement.

snorlax02

Joined: 22 Dec 2025

Last visit: 30 Jul 2026

Posts: 39

Own Kudos:

[1]

Given Kudos: 4

Posts: 39

Kudos: 24

[1]

14 Jul 2026, 06:58

Kudos

Bookmarks

Notes:
- 12 wk trail for pain killer
- nearly all => not all - completed rschedule without interruptions
- conclusion - less impact seeing avg data across all patients

To undermine conclusion we need evidence that the drug is effective.
If we somehow prove that people who took the dose without interruption had signififcant results compared to whole trial set
or
Maybe the impact although moderate is much greater compared to any other treatment or medicine developed so far

A - X - This says the reduction was more impactful for people with higher level of pains. But it talks about absolute if we consider percentage reduction it may come out to be similar
B - Possible ans - if people who dedicatedly showed significant improvement on avg => subset taken from the trial set has better results
C - It compares the drug with another drug but it will mostly kind of support the conclusion why would one work on a pain killer whose effects are similar to existing one, doesn't make sense so either it should perform better or should have another advantages
D - possible ans - We define the time window, drugs may take time to show effect so considering the first few weeks might not be a good indication instead of that using avd during time when drug is bound to take effect make much more sense
E - X - historic treatments doesn't matter we are focused on research for current drug, irrelevant

Ans - D

Not B because we don't know still how much better the impact is for the subset who took does without interruptions

Bunuel

This question was provided by GMAT Club
for the GMAT World Cup Competition

Win over $30,000 in prizes such as Courses, Tests, Private Tutoring, and more

⚠️ Important: GMAT Club does not allow AI-generated posts. AI-generated solutions are not eligible for kudos, and users who post them may face moderation action, including a ban.

monso010

Joined: 28 May 2026

Last visit: 08 Sep 2026

Posts: 10

Own Kudos:

Given Kudos: 3

Posts: 10

Kudos: 7

14 Jul 2026, 07:12

Kudos

Bookmarks

In this question, to weaken the conclusion of the researcher, we majorly need to show that the drug actually provided meaningful relief and that the method of the analysis is flawed.

If we see, only option D clearly gives us evidence and info as to why even if the 12 week average pain point reduction was low, the drug has actually provided immense relief as it accelerated in the last 4 months of the treatment.

Hence it weakens the analysis and actually provides us info that the drug indeed provide meaningful relief.

Correct answer - D

tm28

Joined: 06 Jun 2021

Last visit: 26 Aug 2026

Posts: 10

Own Kudos:

Given Kudos: 64

Posts: 10

Kudos: 8

14 Jul 2026, 07:13

Kudos

Bookmarks

Since the conclusion is talking about average pain releief amongst all the patients is only modest, so it may be true that patients with highest pain got most releif than others. So the medicine actually worked. Hence option A is the correct weakener.

ShreyaMittal1609

Joined: 05 Nov 2025

Last visit: 08 Sep 2026

Posts: 82

Own Kudos:

[1]

Given Kudos: 210

GMAT Focus 1: 545 Q77 V77 DI77 Verified score

Products:

GMAT Focus 1: 545 Q77 V77 DI77 Verified score

Posts: 82

Kudos: 45

[1]

14 Jul 2026, 07:23

Kudos

Bookmarks

My answer is D)

A) Researcher has taken average reduction as evidence, some might face greater or lesser will not weaken the analysis/reasoning- Eliminate
B) It is mentioned NEARLY ALL followed full dosing without interruption so we are not concerned if few have did not adhere (Average)- Eliminate
C) This strengthens the argument by saying same effect with and without drug- Eliminate
D) This tells why average reduction over the course is not the right measure for analysing the efficacy of the drug hence the conclusion is undermined (drug is effective after eight weeks)- CORRECT
E) We are not concerned by currently available treatments- Out of Scope- Eliminate.

Bunuel

This question was provided by GMAT Club
for the GMAT World Cup Competition

Win over $30,000 in prizes such as Courses, Tests, Private Tutoring, and more

⚠️ Important: GMAT Club does not allow AI-generated posts. AI-generated solutions are not eligible for kudos, and users who post them may face moderation action, including a ban.

PulkitSaran

Joined: 10 Apr 2021

Last visit: 20 Aug 2026

Posts: 34

Own Kudos:

[1]

Given Kudos: 437

Products:

Posts: 34

Kudos: 28

[1]

14 Jul 2026, 07:25

Kudos

Bookmarks

Bunuel

This question was provided by GMAT Club
for the GMAT World Cup Competition

Win over $30,000 in prizes such as Courses, Tests, Private Tutoring, and more

⚠️ Important: GMAT Club does not allow AI-generated posts. AI-generated solutions are not eligible for kudos, and users who post them may face moderation action, including a ban.

We need to weaken the researcher’s conclusion that the drug had provided little relief to patients.

A. This comparison is irrelevant.

B. We already know nearly all patients completed the schedule without interruption.

C. This strengthens the researcher’s conclusion.

D. Correct. If the reductions were negligible in the first 8 weeks but accelerated sharply in the final 4 weeks, the average reduction across the entire time period would be modest. This undermines the researcher’s conclusion since it shows that the drug becomes increasingly effective as time passes.

E. Knowing about other treatments has no impact on the researcher’s conclusion.

yashsharma1

Joined: 18 Apr 2025

Last visit: 07 Sep 2026

Posts: 76

Own Kudos:

Given Kudos: 26

Location: India

Schools: IESE '26 (WL)

GMAT Focus 1: 645 Q81 V82 DI83 Verified score

Products:

Schools: IESE '26 (WL)

GMAT Focus 1: 645 Q81 V82 DI83 Verified score

Posts: 76

Kudos: 49

14 Jul 2026, 07:29

Kudos

Bookmarks

The question stem goes like this. There was a drug for which a 12 week long trial was conducted and almost all patients completed full schedule of the drug during study. The researcher then says that because the average reduction in pain scores is 'modest', the drug has not provided much meaningdul relief to patients.
But what if without the drug, some or majority of patients would have suffered very much. Becasue on an average, the pain score didn't decrease much, doesn't mean there was not significant benefir to a group of the patients involved.

B. Since the question is saying that nearly all patients completed the course and on average the pain reduction was not much, this statement does not tell us anything additionally usefule.
C. We are interested in the results achieved by the drug and not the placebo. If anything, this can strengthen the researcher's claim since if the placebo can achieve the same result, the drug is not very effective.
D. Since the question talks about average pain score reduction, how this progressed during the study is irrelevant
E. Historical drug results are irrelevant here since we do not know whether these historical drugs/treatments were categorized as effective or not

A. Best option IMO. There was a group of patients with high pain score. For them, there was a greater pain reduction. Hence, there is a benefit of the medicine to patients. Futher, If a Very high score has come to low and moderately high has come to moderately low, the average will be grouped and on an overall not show much change, pre vs post.

Mardee

Joined: 22 Nov 2022

Last visit: 19 Aug 2026

Posts: 286

Own Kudos:

248

Given Kudos: 21

Posts: 286

Kudos: 248

14 Jul 2026, 07:30

Kudos

Bookmarks

A. Irrelevant as this tells that drug works for one subgroup, but the researchers conclusion is about all patients. This weakens only a little bit and not enough to what we are looking for
B. Irrelevant as we know from passage that, nearly all patients have taken the dosing without interruption, which means that only a few of them have missed doses. Now, these few patients cant explain why the overall average reduction was only modest
C. Irrelevant as it strengthens the researchers conclusion instead of weaking it becasue if we are seeing placebo do the exact same thing as the drug, then one can say that the drug is not effective at all
D. Irrelevant as it doesent directly attack the evidence and undermine the conclusion. We see that the researchers conclusion is based on the overall average across the full trial. Even if we see the improvement is accelerated late, the final average reduction is still only modest. The timing of the improvement doesent really change the magnitude of the benefits it caused.
E. Relevant as it completely removes the researchers criteria to what is "meaningful" according to him. If no existing treatment can achieve more than a modest reduction because of the sever nature of the condition, then achieving even a modest reduction can be considered a major clinical success. It basically means that this new drug performs just as well as the best treatments on the market. This would mean that a modest reduction is a meaningful relief in the context of this particular disease.

E.

LibrarianTurtle

Joined: 12 Nov 2024

Last visit: 06 Sep 2026

Posts: 36

Own Kudos:

[1]

Given Kudos: 8

GPA: 3.9

Products:

Posts: 36

Kudos: 24

[1]

14 Jul 2026, 07:37

Kudos

Bookmarks

A pharmaceutical company conducted a 12 weeks long clinical trial for their new pain killer.

Duration of trial: 12-Weeks
Participation: Nearly all patients.
Dosage: Full dose without interruption
Results: Little meaningful relief & Avg. reduction in pain scores was modest

What does the question ask ? Which undermines (Weakens) the researchers conclusion? So we need to show that results were not modest or little meaningful, but rather that it has greater effect.

A.)For some patients with higher initial pain scores it may had greater effect but if the avg. is moderate, then that means there are few outliers. For the rest of the patients it had moderate effect.(Does not weaken)
B.)Missing a dose may result in decreased level of painkiller effect, as a result others patients have greater pain reduction. (Does not weaken)
C.)Placebo had the same effect with original drug. (It does the reverse, it actually strengthens the conclusion, If placebo = original drug, then drug has no effect, basically)
D.)First eight weeks correspond to 66% of the trial and during that period patients had negligible effects but during the last 4 weeks which corresponds to 33% of the trial patients had greater effects which increased sharply. (Why so then the results are modest ?) When we look at the percentage of the trial periods, during the greater part patients had little pain reduction so results are more near to this part since it is 66% but in reality when the drug kicks in during last 4 weeks it greatly decreases pain. So, in reality pain killer has greater than average pain reduction)
Ans. (D)
IMO

patnaik1988

Joined: 05 Oct 2024

Last visit: 08 Sep 2026

Posts: 84

Own Kudos:

Given Kudos: 68

Posts: 84

Kudos: 19

14 Jul 2026, 07:39

Kudos

Bookmarks

Ans Chioce A: With full dosage schedule, If Avg reductions by the end of study were greater for patients with higher initial pain scores than who begin with mild pain scores, it directly undermines researchers conclusion that drug provided little relief to patients.
The avg reduction in pain scores was modest because many patients were taken for the trial were initially with mild pain.

Bunuel

This question was provided by GMAT Club
for the GMAT World Cup Competition

Win over $30,000 in prizes such as Courses, Tests, Private Tutoring, and more

⚠️ Important: GMAT Club does not allow AI-generated posts. AI-generated solutions are not eligible for kudos, and users who post them may face moderation action, including a ban.

firefox300

Joined: 15 Dec 2025

Last visit: 27 Jul 2026

Posts: 151

Own Kudos:

140

Posts: 151

Kudos: 140

14 Jul 2026, 07:40

Kudos

Bookmarks

A It leaves the total average unchanged even though the average reduction was greater for patients with more severe pain.

B With almost perfect adherence, this doesn't explain the weak average.

C It strengthens the researcher's argument by matching placebo results.

D CORRECT. Because the drug worked mainly at the end, the total average hides its true impact.

E It only contextualizes the result, doesn't prove effectiveness.

The correct answer is D

DishaSaha

Joined: 03 Nov 2024

Last visit: 30 Aug 2026

Posts: 64

Own Kudos:

Given Kudos: 24

GMAT Focus 1: 555 Q81 V75 DI78 Verified score

Posts: 64

Kudos: 49

14 Jul 2026, 07:53

Kudos

Bookmarks

Passage analysis,
12 week clinical trial.
conclusion, the drug is little helpful in terms of meaningful relief.
Based on the avarage reduction in pain score.

Question analysis,
Weaken author's conclusion.

Answer choice analysis,

A. This is the correct answer. Suppose the people with highest pain score has greater reduction but the people with lower pain scored lower pain reduction the average will be less. But it does not reflect whether the drug is little meaningful or not in terms of meaningful relief.

B. This does not conclude anything.

C.totally out of context.

D.We already have 12 week data. And even if the drug has reached its full therapeutic conc. that means it can not increase more, i.e, it bolsters authors opinion than weaken.

E. Irrelevant info.

Bunuel

This question was provided by GMAT Club
for the GMAT World Cup Competition

Win over $30,000 in prizes such as Courses, Tests, Private Tutoring, and more

⚠️ Important: GMAT Club does not allow AI-generated posts. AI-generated solutions are not eligible for kudos, and users who post them may face moderation action, including a ban.

kavyamahajan9

Joined: 09 Jun 2021

Last visit: 16 Aug 2026

Posts: 44

Own Kudos:

[1]

Given Kudos: 1

Posts: 44

Kudos: 40

[1]

14 Jul 2026, 08:07

Kudos

Bookmarks

Option D
Pain scores were negligible during the first eight weeks ....

This statement weakens the statement the most as the research only focuses on the average of all the weeks all together but if the drugs showed significant changes after some weeks that the drug was usefull and not only modest.

Why others are not the correct options

A) - This statement is telling about how the drug works for sever conditions better and not for mild ones but this can be also be a use full but it does not directly contradict the statement as option D
B)missed at least once - this is reflecting that the trial was not done correctly but in the statement it is clearly stated that all patients completed the full dosing
C) this argument strengthens the statement's claim as it is proving the drug was modest
E) this argument also is comparing the drugs not actually giving a statement on the analysis of research

Bunuel

This question was provided by GMAT Club
for the GMAT World Cup Competition

Win over $30,000 in prizes such as Courses, Tests, Private Tutoring, and more

⚠️ Important: GMAT Club does not allow AI-generated posts. AI-generated solutions are not eligible for kudos, and users who post them may face moderation action, including a ban.

TheAdmissionHub

Joined: 11 May 2026

Last visit: 08 Sep 2026

Posts: 127

Own Kudos:

117

Given Kudos: 1

GMAT 1: 740 Q51 V39 Verified score

Posts: 127

Kudos: 117

14 Jul 2026, 10:35

Kudos

Bookmarks

Premises
Premise 1: A pharmaceutical company conducted a 12-week clinical trial of a new painkiller.
Premise 2: Nearly all patients completed the full dosing schedule without interruption.
Premise 3: The average reduction in pain scores over the 12 weeks was only modest.
Conclusion
The researcher concludes that the drug provided little meaningful relief to patients.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the researcher's conclusion?
(A) Among patients who entered the trial with the highest initial pain scores, average reductions by the end of the study were greater than those observed in patients who began with only mild or moderate pain.
Wrong: This shows that one subgroup benefited more than another, but the overall average could still be modest. It does not seriously undermine the conclusion that the drug provided little meaningful relief overall.

(B) Patients who adhered to the prescribed dosing schedule without interruption reported substantially greater pain reductions than those who missed at least one dose during the trial.
Wrong: Since nearly all patients completed the dosing schedule, this comparison is based on only a small minority of patients and does not challenge the researcher's conclusion about the overall effectiveness of the drug.

(C) Patients who were given a placebo rather than the drug reported similarly modest reductions in pain scores over the same 12-week period.
Wrong: This suggests the drug may be no better than a placebo, which actually supports the researcher's conclusion rather than weakening it.

(D) Pain score reductions among patients in the trial were negligible during the first eight weeks but accelerated sharply in the final four weeks as the drug reached its full therapeutic concentration in the bloodstream.
Correct: average reduction over the study is still described as modest and it will have its full effect later, down the line.

(E)The chronic pain condition targeted by the drug is one for which all currently available treatments have historically produced only modest average reductions in standardized pain scores.
Wrong: The researcher assumes that a modest average reduction means the drug provides little meaningful relief. If all effective treatments for this condition also produce only modest reductions, may or may not actually represent a clinically meaningful benefit. This is vague.