It is not uncommon, while under general anesthesia, for

To strengthen the conclusion : This can be put an unfair burden on the surgery teams....
So we need to find an option which makes us believe more in this thought.

SO lets see if there is any assumption to reach this conclusion. If yes, then we can strengthen that.

Lets pre-think in what cases this selection of drugs be not unfair.
1. It is known that pronofyl will be allergic to this particular patient and hence the other expensive drug is the desirable option for that patient.
2. If the consent is already taken from patients which drug to give.

So the assumption will be negation of both the above points.
1. It is not known which patient will be allergic to pronofyl.
2. Consent is not already given.

SO if any options resonates with any of these 2 assumptions, we have our strengthener.

IMO. D resonates with assumption 1.
Hence IMO: Answer is (D)

To strengthen the conclusion: This can put an unfair burden on the surgery teams. The surgery team must decide for an unconscious patient.

(Pre-thinking) The assumption rests on the fact that:
1. A patient’s prior consent is not taken regarding what to do when such a situation arises.
2. There is no way to predetermine whether a patient is allergic to Pronofyl.

Going through options:

(A) All anesthesia providers have equal access to Pronofyl and Rontynyl.
So? If both the drug is equally available, the surgery team does not necessarily need to take the burden of deciding on themselves.

(B) Not all insurance plans will cover the full cost of treatments for allergic reactions to drugs taken while under anesthesia.
This, in fact, says that the surgeons can decide based on looking at the patient’s insurance plans. It does not strengthen.

(C) The patent for Rontynyl will not expire for several years, so the price of Ronyntyl is not expected to decrease for quite some time.
We already know that Rontynyl is way more expensive than Pronofyl in the current situation. It does not add anything to strengthen.

(D) There is no way to predetermine which patients will have an adverse reaction to Pronofyl.
If there were a way to predetermine, the decision of which drug to use would depend on the results of the allergy test. Since there is no way, the surgeons have to take the decision on themselves. This matches the pre-thinking point 2.

(E) Patients who receive a dose of Rontynyl often require additional post-operative doctor visits to recover from the drug’s potency.
Again, this does not show how the decision of which drug to use lies solely on the surgeons.

Answer D.

Gist: There are 2 drugs available for anesthesiologists to restore the breathing process while patient is under general anesthesia.
P is cheap, effective but causes severe reactions in 5 % of the patients.
R is effective too, it doesn't cause any reactions but it is expensive and not covered by insurance companies.
This poses a dilemma for surgery teams that need to decide which one to administer.
Prethinking: If the surgery teams could determine which patients could have allergic reactions, they administered R for them as that is the best option. If not administer P as that is more economic option.


Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the conclusion above?

(A) All anesthesia providers have equal access to Pronofyl and Rontynyl. -Irrelevant
(B) Not all insurance plans will cover the full cost of treatments for allergic reactions to drugs taken while under anesthesia. - Tempting, but " not all" is the key. If 99% cover then this weakens the conclusion.
(C) The patent for Rontynyl will not expire for several years, so the price of Ronyntyl is not expected to decrease for quite some time. - Irrelevant
(D) There is no way to predetermine which patients will have an adverse reaction to Pronofyl. - Correct, as per our pre-thinking
(E) Patients who receive a dose of Rontynyl often require additional post-operative doctor visits to recover from the drug’s potency - irrelevant

It is not uncommon, while under general anesthesia, for a patient’s heart to stop beating. In these situations, if a catheter hasn’t been set up to allow the surgery team to manually circulate the patient’s blood, two drugs are available for anesthesiologists to restore the breathing process. Each is effective, but the far less expensive drug, Pronofyl, causes severe allergic reactions in approximately 5% of patients, while the far more expensive drug, Rontynyl – rarely covered by insurance plans – does not cause such reactions. This can put an unfair burden on the surgery teams, however, when these stressful situations occur: in many cases, they must decide for an unconscious patient whether to risk an unlikely-but-catastrophic reaction, or create a potentially disastrous financial situation for the patient.

The argument is hard to derive from this stem as there is a lot of background information.

The argument is that during situations under anesthesia when a patients heart stops beating, an unfair burden is placed upon surgery teams because the teams must decide for an unconscious patient whether to risk an unlikely reaction or disastrous financial situation because:
premise: the unlikely 5% chance of happening reaction is caused as the result of a reaction to a cheaper drug; and
premise: the alternative to the risky drug is a "far more expensive drug", which is rarely covered by insurance plans, but does not cause such reactions.

Presumably, the argument assumes there is no way to pre-determine someone's choice, which is why the surgery teams are slapped in the face with an "unfair burden" to make the choice for them.

Here's my POE:
A is irrelevant to the argument at hand.
B- doesn't explain or support the unfair burden placed on the teams. In fact, I initially thought this weakened the argument because if insurance companies dont cover allergic reactions then it would make more sense to go for the expensive drug, but this is probably going a step too far.
C - the patent expiry and price of Ronyntyl are irrelevant to the argument at hand.
D - this reinforces the assumption made, so i believe it is the correct answer.
E - is incorrect because it does not support the fact that the teams are faced with this burden of a decision.

let's deconstruct the argument

It is common under general anesthesia for a patient’s heart to stop beating. In these situations,
two drugs are available for anesthesiologists to restore the breathing process.each is effective
-- the less expensive drug, Profonyl, causes a severe allergic reaction
--more expensive drug, Rontynyl, rarely covered by insurance plan, do not cause such reaction.

when a patient’s heart stops beating the surgery teams are responsible for deciding whether to use Profonyl, which causes an allergic reaction or
to use Rontynyl, which is far more expensive
because surgery teams are responsible for deciding, this puts an unfair burden on them(this is the conclusion of the argument)

by saying this author assumes that
--there is no third party involved which decide which drug to use
--there is no process to determine which drug is best for the patients

since this is strengthen question lets find the option which says this actually puts a burden on surgery teams


(A) All anesthesia providers have equal access to Pronofyl and Rontynyl.
this option talks about anesthesia provider equal access to drugs it doesn't talk
about surgery teams or their decision to use drugs so this doesn't strengthen our conclusion--irrelevant

(B) Not all insurance plans will cover the full cost of treatments for allergic reactions to drugs taken while under anesthesia.
whether all insurance plan covers the full cost of an allergic reaction doesn't help explain
deciding between two drugs puts a burden on the surgery team or not--so this option is out

(C) The patent for Rontynyl will not expire for several years, so the price of Ronyntyl is not expected to decrease for quite some time.
this option says patent for rontynyl will not expire so for some time its price is not expected to decrease
suppose after some time its price decrease but the decrease is so small that it is still far more expensive, there is no way to prove whether this decrease will make it cheaper than pronofyl ---anyways this doesnt help strengthen our conclusion so out

(D) There is no way to predetermine which patients will have an adverse reaction to Pronofyl.
this answer choice matches the author's assumption
negate the option---it says there is a way to predetermine which patients will have an adverse reaction to Pronofyl
then there will be no burden on the team of deciding between the drugs they can simply give the second drug to
the patient having an adverse reaction to pronofyl ---if negated our conclusion falls apart
this answer choice strengthens our conclusion hence correct answer


(E) Patients who receive a dose of Rontynyl often require additional post-operative doctor visits to recover from the drug’s potency.
this option talks about post-operative doctor visits of patients who were given Rontynyl
conclusion talks about the decision of surgery teams(to use drugs) and this decision puts a burden
this answer choice doesn't help strengthen our conclusion so out

D is the answer

Premise - Pronofyl- side effect high in 5%; Rontynyl- no insurance coverage --> therefore doctors have to decide which one to use
Missing Info- Argument is forcing us to believe that there is no way to determine which patient would face the side effects. In case it can be determined then the argument completely collapses and hence it is a make or break question to ask.

(A) All anesthesia providers have equal access to Pronofyl and Rontynyl.- Easy out no.1, even if the access were an issue then also the dilemma of decision would have been there
(B) Not all insurance plans will cover the full cost of treatments for allergic reactions to drugs taken while under anesthesia.- Runner Up, it warps the information of argument and goes a bit extra on itself from the context provided in the argument. We are essentially discussing between insurance of drugs and side effects and not between full coverage or partial coverage of the side effect of a drug
(C) The patent for Rontynyl will not expire for several years, so the price of Ronyntyl is not expected to decrease for quite some time.- Easy out no. 2, alltogether a new information. Does not assist in strengthening that the doctors have to face the dilemma of decision
(D) There is no way to predetermine which patients will have an adverse reaction to Pronofyl. -Bingo! If there is no way to determine which all people would face the side effects then the doctors would have to face the dilemma of decision and thus it strengthens the doctor's position.
(E) Patients who receive a dose of Rontynyl often require additional post-operative doctor visits to recover from the drug’s potency.- Easy out no.3, it also does not help to strengthen the dilemma

The conclusion:
The selection between Rontynyl, more expensive drug, and Pronofyl, less expensive drug, can put an unfair burden on the surgery teams. In many cases, they must decide for an unconscious patient whether to risk an unlikely-but-catastrophic reaction, or create a potentially disastrous financial situation for the patient.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the conclusion above?

(A) All anesthesia providers have equal access to Pronofyl and Rontynyl.
This is an assumption required by the argument. It does not strengthen or weaken the argument.

(B) Not all insurance plans will cover the full cost of treatments for allergic reactions to drugs taken while under anesthesia.
Whether all insurance plans will cover the full cost of allergic-reaction treatments has no bearing on whether or not the surgery teams must decide for the unconscious patient which drug to be given.

(C) The patent for Rontynyl will not expire for several years, so the price of Ronyntyl is not expected to decrease for quite some time.
The information about the expected price of Ronyntyl in the future doesn't affect the argument: the teams still need to decide for the unconscious patient which drug to be given.

(D) There is no way to predetermine which patients will have an adverse reaction to Pronofyl.
Correct answer. If there is no way to predetermine which patient will have an adverse reaction to Pronofyl, then the teams will have to decide whether to give Pronofyl or Rontynylis to unconscious patient.

(E) Patients who receive a dose of Rontynyl often require additional post-operative doctor visits to recover from the drug’s potency.
Whether any additional post-operative doctor visits is required will not affect whether the surgery teams must select which drug to be given or not for the unconscious patient.

(A) All anesthesia providers have equal access to Pronofyl and Rontynyl.
if the anesthesia is not perfroming any surgeries then the statement will havve no serious implication therefore out

(B) Not all insurance plans will cover the full cost of treatments for allergic reactions to drugs taken while under anesthesia.
This further widens the gap stating that infections will be scuceded by a financial crisis this not what we are looking for therefor eout

(C) The patent for Rontynyl will not expire for several years, so the price of Ronyntyl is not expected to decrease for quite some time.
This definitely strengthens the second point however the dilemma faceed by the anesthesist which is the main objective therefore out

(D) There is no way to predetermine which patients will have an adverse reaction to Pronofyl.
This is definitely in line with the argument and leads strength to the fact that the anesthisists cannot accurately determine therefore let us hang on to it

(E) Patients who receive a dose of Rontynyl often require additional post-operative doctor visits to recover from the drug’s potency.
Similar reasoning as C therefore out

Therefore IMO D

Conclusion - 'Unfair burden of decision on surgery teams'

Gap - Do they not know which patients will display adverse reaction to Pronofyl
or Have they not been informed the financial well being of the patient (possibly the patient have directed whatever the cost they don't want adverse reaction)
or can they not handle severe allergic reaction easily using some other medicine.

Option D is providing info about one of the gaps only, hence strengthens.

Conclusion: They must decide for an unconscious patient whether to risk an unlikely-but-catastrophic reaction, or create a potentially disastrous financial situation for the patient.

(A) All anesthesia providers have equal access to Pronofyl and Rontynyl. While that maybe true, access or availability is not a deciding factor of what to choose between two course of actions
(B) Not all insurance plans will cover the full cost of treatments for allergic reactions to drugs taken while under anesthesia. Partial scope concerning only R drug.
(C) The patent for Rontynyl will not expire for several years, so the price of Ronyntyl is not expected to decrease for quite some time. Partial scope concerning only R drug.
(D) There is no way to predetermine which patients will have an adverse reaction to Pronofyl. As there is no way to find patient's susceptibility to the drug, doctors must make a decision between two. In other words, had there been a way to find whether patient develops allergy, they could easily choose the other. There would not be a stressful situation in the first place.
(E) Patients who receive a dose of Rontynyl often require additional post-operative doctor visits to recover from the drug’s potency Out of scope

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.