It is currently 17 Oct 2017, 03:22

### 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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# It is illegal to advertise prescription medications in

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 16 Oct 2011
Posts: 128

Kudos [?]: 16 [0], given: 5

Location: United States

### Show Tags

09 Dec 2011, 02:13
cheryl3007 wrote:
Conclusion of the argument: inappropriate prescriptions would not become more common.
Main premise: But since physicians have the final say as to whether to prescribe a medication for a patient

For Evaluate the argument question, we should look for the answer choice with a question that:
- If we answer Yes to that question, the conclusion will be more/less likely to be true.
- If we answer No to that question, the conclusion will be less/more likely to be true.
Use this method to check the option E.

"Whether physicians would give in to a patient's demands for a prescription medication chosen by the patient when the one originally prescribed by the physician fails to perform as desired."
E contains a question: "Would physicians give in....?"
- If yes : the physicians give in --> the conclusion will be less likely to be true/ be weakened a little bit.
- If no: the physicians would not give in --> the conclusion will be more likely to be true/ be strengthened a little bit.
The validity of the conclusion changes when we get different answers to the question --> That is the question we need to evaluate the argument. --> E is the answer.

IMHO, the key is C!

C,D,E end up being eligible contenders, I would say!

E=> Physicians giving in to patients' demands if the physician's original prescription fails - Scenario based... Not general!
D=> Important source of info... True, Valid to evaluate the need for advertising, but, I reckon, we are looking to evaluate the objections
C=> Premise clearly says - Doctor has the ultimate authority to finalize on the medication, despite the patient's whatever comprehension of the adv.
Hence, doctors will not have to get influenced by the ads, if they, then it calls for a serious objection => C verifies that!

Kudos [?]: 16 [0], given: 5

BSchool Forum Moderator
Status: Flying over the cloud!
Joined: 17 Aug 2011
Posts: 889

Kudos [?]: 718 [1], given: 44

Location: Viet Nam
GMAT Date: 06-06-2014
GPA: 3.07

### Show Tags

10 Dec 2011, 02:47
1
KUDOS
E. Whether physicians would give in to a patient's demands for a prescription medication chosen by the patient when the one originally prescribed by the physician fails to perform as desired.

If the physicians would give in to a patient's demands for a prescription medication chosen by the patient when the one originally prescribed by the physician fails to perform as desired. => the prescription advertisement will become commonly. If not, the advertisement become ineffective.
_________________

Rules for posting in verbal gmat forum, read it before posting anything in verbal forum
Giving me + 1 kudos if my post is valuable with you

The more you like my post, the more you share to other's need

CR: Focus of the Week: Must be True Question

Kudos [?]: 718 [1], given: 44

Manager
Joined: 16 Oct 2011
Posts: 128

Kudos [?]: 16 [0], given: 5

Location: United States

### Show Tags

10 Dec 2011, 03:15
tuanquang269 wrote:
E. Whether physicians would give in to a patient's demands for a prescription medication chosen by the patient when the one originally prescribed by the physician fails to perform as desired.

If the physicians would give in to a patient's demands for a prescription medication chosen by the patient when the one originally prescribed by the physician fails to perform as desired. => the prescription advertisement will become commonly. If not, the advertisement become ineffective.

Valid !
Suddenly E seems obvious !

Valuable => Kudos!

Kudos [?]: 16 [0], given: 5

Director
Joined: 28 Jul 2011
Posts: 521

Kudos [?]: 295 [0], given: 16

Location: United States
GPA: 3.86
WE: Accounting (Commercial Banking)

### Show Tags

12 Dec 2011, 06:11
cheryl3007 wrote:
Conclusion of the argument: inappropriate prescriptions would not become more common.
Main premise: But since physicians have the final say as to whether to prescribe a medication for a patient

For Evaluate the argument question, we should look for the answer choice with a question that:
- If we answer Yes to that question, the conclusion will be more/less likely to be true.
- If we answer No to that question, the conclusion will be less/more likely to be true.
Use this method to check the option E.

"Whether physicians would give in to a patient's demands for a prescription medication chosen by the patient when the one originally prescribed by the physician fails to perform as desired."
E contains a question: "Would physicians give in....?"
- If yes : the physicians give in --> the conclusion will be less likely to be true/ be weakened a little bit.
- If no: the physicians would not give in --> the conclusion will be more likely to be true/ be strengthened a little bit.
The validity of the conclusion changes when we get different answers to the question --> That is the question we need to evaluate the argument. --> E is the answer.

This approach works even for C

If same information is provided then the answer is Yes ----->strengthens
If ame information not provided Then answer is no No-------->weakens

_________________

Kudos [?]: 295 [0], given: 16

Manager
Joined: 16 Oct 2011
Posts: 128

Kudos [?]: 16 [1], given: 5

Location: United States

### Show Tags

12 Dec 2011, 07:48
1
KUDOS
kotela wrote:
cheryl3007 wrote:
Conclusion of the argument: inappropriate prescriptions would not become more common.
Main premise: But since physicians have the final say as to whether to prescribe a medication for a patient

For Evaluate the argument question, we should look for the answer choice with a question that:
- If we answer Yes to that question, the conclusion will be more/less likely to be true.
- If we answer No to that question, the conclusion will be less/more likely to be true.
Use this method to check the option E.

"Whether physicians would give in to a patient's demands for a prescription medication chosen by the patient when the one originally prescribed by the physician fails to perform as desired."
E contains a question: "Would physicians give in....?"
- If yes : the physicians give in --> the conclusion will be less likely to be true/ be weakened a little bit.
- If no: the physicians would not give in --> the conclusion will be more likely to be true/ be strengthened a little bit.
The validity of the conclusion changes when we get different answers to the question --> That is the question we need to evaluate the argument. --> E is the answer.

This approach works even for C

If same information is provided then the answer is Yes ----->strengthens
If ame information not provided Then answer is no No-------->weakens

Hi kotela,

Now, I think, this has a kind of view, something like this, too.

C=> Ads directed to public provide same info to physicians also.
E=> Physicians would get influenced by patient's demands if their originally recommended prescription fails.

Now, look at the argument. It clearly says - "general population lacks the specialized knowledge to evaluate such advertisements" and "physicians have the final say as to whether to prescribe a medication for a patient".

It simply talks about the inability/inefficiency of the patients to comprehend ads, and not the ads that try to influence the patients directly .Hence, as in C, it is not relevant for uniformity of info to both patients & physicians, since ads are not to be blamed. It is only the patients who get wrong in understanding. Clearly, E is an example to show whether physicians are capable enough to get influenced by patients' demands, "once they get failed".

Also, I'm not very much with this negation approach, even in case of assumptions. It works, but I think u can get mislead!

Thanks!

Kudos [?]: 16 [1], given: 5

Manager
Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Posts: 63

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 8

### Show Tags

12 Dec 2011, 09:06
Thanks for the explanation Cheryl3007

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 8

Senior Manager
Joined: 13 Aug 2010
Posts: 281

Kudos [?]: 35 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

12 Dec 2011, 21:35
+1 for E

Kudos [?]: 35 [0], given: 1

Director
Joined: 28 Jul 2011
Posts: 521

Kudos [?]: 295 [0], given: 16

Location: United States
GPA: 3.86
WE: Accounting (Commercial Banking)

### Show Tags

15 Dec 2011, 19:05
raghupara wrote:
kotela wrote:
cheryl3007 wrote:
Conclusion of the argument: inappropriate prescriptions would not become more common.
Main premise: But since physicians have the final say as to whether to prescribe a medication for a patient

For Evaluate the argument question, we should look for the answer choice with a question that:
- If we answer Yes to that question, the conclusion will be more/less likely to be true.
- If we answer No to that question, the conclusion will be less/more likely to be true.
Use this method to check the option E.

"Whether physicians would give in to a patient's demands for a prescription medication chosen by the patient when the one originally prescribed by the physician fails to perform as desired."
E contains a question: "Would physicians give in....?"
- If yes : the physicians give in --> the conclusion will be less likely to be true/ be weakened a little bit.
- If no: the physicians would not give in --> the conclusion will be more likely to be true/ be strengthened a little bit.
The validity of the conclusion changes when we get different answers to the question --> That is the question we need to evaluate the argument. --> E is the answer.

This approach works even for C

If same information is provided then the answer is Yes ----->strengthens
If ame information not provided Then answer is no No-------->weakens

Hi kotela,

Now, I think, this has a kind of view, something like this, too.

C=> Ads directed to public provide same info to physicians also.
E=> Physicians would get influenced by patient's demands if their originally recommended prescription fails.

Now, look at the argument. It clearly says - "general population lacks the specialized knowledge to evaluate such advertisements" and "physicians have the final say as to whether to prescribe a medication for a patient".

It simply talks about the inability/inefficiency of the patients to comprehend ads, and not the ads that try to influence the patients directly .Hence, as in C, it is not relevant for uniformity of info to both patients & physicians, since ads are not to be blamed. It is only the patients who get wrong in understanding. Clearly, E is an example to show whether physicians are capable enough to get influenced by patients' demands, "once they get failed".

Also, I'm not very much with this negation approach, even in case of assumptions. It works, but I think u can get mislead!

Thanks!

Thanks man...Got it

+1 Kudos for you
_________________

Kudos [?]: 295 [0], given: 16

Manager
Joined: 07 Aug 2011
Posts: 171

Kudos [?]: 23 [0], given: 6

Location: United States
GMAT 1: 690 Q48 V37

### Show Tags

26 Dec 2011, 11:53
E just its closest to be right

Kudos [?]: 23 [0], given: 6

Senior Manager
Joined: 12 Oct 2011
Posts: 256

Kudos [?]: 61 [0], given: 110

### Show Tags

03 Jan 2012, 11:57
All options look weird but I think E looks the best here.
_________________

Consider KUDOS if you feel the effort's worth it

Kudos [?]: 61 [0], given: 110

Manager
Status: Re-take.. The OG just loves me too much.
Joined: 18 Jun 2012
Posts: 69

Kudos [?]: 56 [0], given: 48

Location: India
GMAT 1: 600 Q44 V29
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)

### Show Tags

25 Jul 2012, 09:01
Question Source : Critical Reasoning from GMAT Prep

It is illegal to advertise prescription medications in Hedland except directly to physicians, either by mail or in medical journals. A proposed law would allow general advertising of prescription medications. Opponents object that the general population lacks the specialized knowledge to evaluate such advertisements and might ask their physicians for inappropriate medications. But since physicians have the final say as to whether to prescribe a medication for a patient, inappropriate prescriptions would not become more common.

Which of the following would it be most useful to establish in order to evaluate the argument?

A. Whether advertising for prescription medications might alert patients to the existence of effective treatments for minor ailments that they had previously thought to be untreatable

B. Whether some people might go to a physician for no reason other than ask for a particular medication they have seen advertised

C. Whether the proposed law requires prescription-medication advertisements directed to the general public to provide the same information as do advertisements directed to physicians.

D. Whether advertisements for prescription medications are currently an important source of information about newly available medications for physicians

E. Whether physicians would give in to patients’ demands for prescription medication they chose when the one originally prescribed by the physician fails to perform.

Can someone explain what should be the logic to solve this kind of questions?
I have serious problems with the evaluate type of questions.

_________________

Live Life the Way YOU Love It !!

GmatPrep1 [10/09/2012] : 650 (Q42;V38) - need to make lesser silly mistakes.
MGMAT 1 [11/09/2012] : 640 (Q44;V34) - need to improve quant pacing and overcome verbal fatigue.

Last edited by broall on 07 Jun 2017, 01:26, edited 1 time in total.

Kudos [?]: 56 [0], given: 48

Kaplan GMAT Instructor
Joined: 25 Aug 2009
Posts: 644

Kudos [?]: 300 [0], given: 2

Location: Cambridge, MA
Re: CR - Evaluate : it is illegal to advertise prescription [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Jul 2012, 13:35
Evaluate question like these are another form of Argument question. Just like Assumption, Strengthen, Weaken, and Flaw questions, your first step is to find the assumption of the argument, the gap between the evidence and conclusion.

In this case, the author's evidence is that doctors have "the final say," and as a result that author concludes patients knowing about medicines will cause poor medical decisions. But we're changing subjects here! The evidence is about who makes the decision, while the conclusion is about HOW the decision turns out. There are many factors that influence the doctor's final decision--including the patient's requests.

Therefore, the assumption is that patients knowing about drugs won't cause doctors, who do have the final say, to make poor choices. And this is an Evaluation question. So we look for the answer choice that lets us evaluate that assumption--we need to ask whether or not patient knowledge can influence medical judgement. And indeed, (E) is exactly the right question, and the correct answer.

Good luck, and I hope this helps!
_________________

Eli Meyer
Kaplan Teacher
http://www.kaptest.com/GMAT

Prepare with Kaplan and save \$150 on a course!

Kaplan Reviews

Kudos [?]: 300 [0], given: 2

Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 7668

Kudos [?]: 17324 [1], given: 232

Location: Pune, India
Re: CR - Evaluate : it is illegal to advertise prescription [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Jul 2012, 22:03
1
KUDOS
Expert's post
thebigr002 wrote:
Question Source : Critical Reasoning from GMAT Prep

It is illegal to advertise prescription medications in Hedland except directly to physicians, either by mail or in medical journals. A proposed law would allow general advertising of prescription medications. Opponents object that the general population lacks the specialized knowledge to evaluate such advertisements and might ask their physicians for inappropriate medications. But since physicians have the final say as to whether to prescribe a medication for a patient, inappropriate prescriptions would not become more common.

Which of the following would it be most useful to establish in order to evaluate the argument?

A. Whether advertising for prescription medications might alert patients to the existence of effective treatments for minor ailments that they had previously thought to be untreatable

B. Whether some people might go to a physician for no reason other than ask for a particular medication they have seen advertised

C. Whether the proposed law requires prescription-medication advertisements directed to the general public to provide the same information as do advertisements directed to physicians.

D. Whether advertisements for prescription medications are currently an important source of information about newly available medications for physicians

E. Whether physicians would give in to patients’ demands for prescription medication they chose when the one originally prescribed by the physician fails to perform.

Can someone explain what should be the logic to solve this kind of questions?
I have serious problems with the evaluate type of questions.

'Evaluate the argument' question is a kind of strengthen/weaken question.
You need to find the option which will strengthen or weaken the conclusion. Think of it this way - A says, "It is a good idea to invest in company A right now."
You want to evaluate this argument. What information will be useful in evaluating this statement? Something that lends credibility to this statement e.g. bright future prospects, strong and clean financial results etc or something that weakens this statement e.g. discord between the management and the workers etc.

Similarly, you identify the conclusion of the argument and then evaluate whether the options affect the conclusion.

Conclusion: inappropriate prescriptions would not become more common

Look at option (E) - Whether physicians would give in to patients’ demands for prescription medication they chose when the one originally prescribed by the physician fails to perform.
Do we need to know this to evaluate the argument? Yes we do. If physicians will give in to patients’ demands, inappropriate prescriptions will become more common. If physicians will not give in to patients’ demands, inappropriate prescriptions will not become more common.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
My Blog

Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for \$199

Veritas Prep Reviews

Kudos [?]: 17324 [1], given: 232

Manager
Status: Re-take.. The OG just loves me too much.
Joined: 18 Jun 2012
Posts: 69

Kudos [?]: 56 [0], given: 48

Location: India
GMAT 1: 600 Q44 V29
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
Re: CR - Evaluate : it is illegal to advertise prescription [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Jul 2012, 02:41
@VeritasPrepKarishma -

Quote:

'Evaluate the argument' question is a kind of strengthen/weaken question.
You need to find the option which will strengthen or weaken the conclusion. Think of it this way - A says, "It is a good idea to invest in company A right now."
You want to evaluate this argument. What information will be useful in evaluating this statement? Something that lends credibility to this statement e.g. bright future prospects, strong and clean financial results etc or something that weakens this statement e.g. discord between the management and the workers etc.

Similarly, you identify the conclusion of the argument and then evaluate whether the options affect the conclusion.

Does that mean that we can apply a sort of Yes/No test.
the correct option would strengthen or weaken the conclusion in either of the yes/no evaluation questions..

say for example -

If physicians will give in to patients’ demands, inappropriate prescriptions will become more common. - Yes. This weakens the conclusion
If physicians will not give in to patients’ demands, inappropriate prescriptions will not become more common - No. This supports the conclusion.

I guess, if we apply this Yes/No test to all the answer options, we can eliminate the irrelevant ones..
_________________

Live Life the Way YOU Love It !!

GmatPrep1 [10/09/2012] : 650 (Q42;V38) - need to make lesser silly mistakes.
MGMAT 1 [11/09/2012] : 640 (Q44;V34) - need to improve quant pacing and overcome verbal fatigue.

Kudos [?]: 56 [0], given: 48

Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 7668

Kudos [?]: 17324 [0], given: 232

Location: Pune, India
Re: CR - Evaluate : it is illegal to advertise prescription [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Jul 2012, 22:08
thebigr002 wrote:
@VeritasPrepKarishma -

Does that mean that we can apply a sort of Yes/No test.
the correct option would strengthen or weaken the conclusion in either of the yes/no evaluation questions..

say for example -

If physicians will give in to patients’ demands, inappropriate prescriptions will become more common. - Yes. This weakens the conclusion
If physicians will not give in to patients’ demands, inappropriate prescriptions will not become more common - No. This supports the conclusion.

I guess, if we apply this Yes/No test to all the answer options, we can eliminate the irrelevant ones..

You can call it whatever you want. You want to find the option that helps you evaluate the conclusion. So the answer to the question in the option should have the ability to affect the strength of the conclusion - either make it stronger or weaker. Note that it is not necessary that both 'yes' and 'no' will affect the conclusion but at least one of them should.

Say, we go back to our previous example:

A says, "It is a good idea to invest in company A right now."

You want to evaluate this argument. What information will be useful in evaluating this statement?
"Was the senior management turnover high in the last 2 yrs?"

Yes - It affects our argument. It may not be a good idea to invest in A.
No - Doesn't affect our argument. You expect the turnover to be low. If it is as expected, it doesn't make our argument stronger. Just that our argument doesn't become weaker.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
My Blog

Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for \$199

Veritas Prep Reviews

Kudos [?]: 17324 [0], given: 232

Senior Manager
Joined: 15 Sep 2011
Posts: 358

Kudos [?]: 403 [0], given: 45

Location: United States
WE: Corporate Finance (Manufacturing)

### Show Tags

06 Feb 2014, 05:24
Here's an evaluate question.
Conclusion: Bust since physicians have the final say as to whether to prescribe a medication for a patient, inappropriate prescriptions would not become more common.

A. Whether advertising for prescription medications might alert patients to the existence of effective treatments for minor ailments that they had previously thought to be untreatable
Effective treatments are never inappropriate, none-whatsoever.

B. Whether some people might go to a physcian for no reason other than ask for a particular medication they have seen advertised Physicians have the final say, so nothing can be determined here.

C. Whether the proposed law requires prescription-medication advertisements directed to the general public to provide the same information as do advertisements directed to physicians. Physicians have the final say, so nothing can be determined here too.

D. Whether advertisements for prescription medications are currently an important source of information about newly available medications for physicians Whether advertisements are an important source of information does not establish that inappropriate prescriptions would not become more common.

E. Whether physicians would give in to a patient's demands for a prescription medication chosen by the patient when the one originally prescribed by the physician fails to perform as desired. If the physician gave into a patient's demands, then inappropriate prescriptions would become more common; if the physician were not to give into a patient's demands, then inappropriate prescriptions would not become more common.

Kudos [?]: 403 [0], given: 45

GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10130

Kudos [?]: 261 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

07 Apr 2015, 23:56
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.

Kudos [?]: 261 [0], given: 0

MBA Section Director
Joined: 19 Mar 2012
Posts: 4468

Kudos [?]: 16950 [0], given: 1961

Location: India
GMAT 1: 760 Q50 V42
GPA: 3.8
WE: Marketing (Energy and Utilities)

### Show Tags

12 May 2015, 15:54
Expert's post
4
This post was
BOOKMARKED
It is illegal to advertise prescription medications in Hedland except directly to physicians, either by mail or in medical journals. A proposed law would allow general advertising of prescription medications. Opponents object that the general population lacks the specialized knowledge to evaluate such advertisements and might ask their physicians for inappropriate medications. But since physicians have the final say as to whether to prescribe a medication for a patient, inappropriate prescriptions would not become more common.

Which of the following would it be most useful to establish in order to evaluate the argument?

A. Whether advertising for prescription medications might alert patients to the existence of effective treatments for minor ailments that they had previously thought to be untreatable

B. Whether some people might go to a physician for no reason other than ask for a particular medication they have seen advertised

C. Whether the proposed law requires prescription-medication advertisements directed to the general public to provide the same information as do advertisements directed to physicians.

D. Whether advertisements for prescription medications are currently an important source of information about newly available medications for physicians

E. Whether physicians would give in to a patient's demands for a prescription medication chosen by the patient when the one originally prescribed by the physician fails to perform as desired.
_________________

Kudos [?]: 16950 [0], given: 1961

Manager
Joined: 06 Jul 2011
Posts: 123

Kudos [?]: 111 [0], given: 240

### Show Tags

12 May 2015, 16:56
E. Whether physicians would give in to a patient's demands for a prescription medication chosen by the patient when the one originally prescribed by the physician fails to perform as desired. - correct answer.

Kudos [?]: 111 [0], given: 240

Verbal Forum Moderator
Joined: 05 Nov 2012
Posts: 532

Kudos [?]: 618 [1], given: 606

Concentration: Technology, Other

### Show Tags

25 May 2015, 06:29
1
KUDOS
It is illegal to advertise prescription medications in Hedland except directly to physicians, either by mail or in medical journals. A proposed law would allow general advertising of prescription medications. Opponents object that the general population lacks the specialized knowledge to evaluate such advertisements and might ask their physicians for inappropriate medications. But since physicians have the final say as to whether to prescribe a medication for a patient, inappropriate prescriptions would not become more common.

Which of the following would it be most useful to establish in order to evaluate the argument?

A. Whether advertising for prescription medications might alert patients to the existence of effective treatments for minor ailments that they had previously thought to be untreatable

B. Whether some people might go to a physician for no reason other than ask for a particular medication they have seen advertised

C. Whether the proposed law requires prescription-medication advertisements directed to the general public to provide the same information as do advertisements directed to physicians.

D. Whether advertisements for prescription medications are currently an important source of information about newly available medications for physicians

E. Whether physicians would give in to a patient's demands for a prescription medication chosen by the patient when the one originally prescribed by the physician fails to perform as desired.
>>Only option E share relevant details regarding highlighted text in conclusion. Answer "Yes" weakens & "No" strengthen the conclusion.
_________________

--------------------------------------------------------
Regards

Kudos [?]: 618 [1], given: 606

Go to page   Previous    1   2   3    Next  [ 47 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by