Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Nov 2007:30 AM PST
-08:30 AM PST
Learn what truly sets the UC Riverside MBA apart and how it helps in your professional growth
Nov 2211:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Do RC/MSR passages scare you? e-GMAT is conducting a masterclass to help you learn – Learn effective reading strategies Tackle difficult RC & MSR with confidence Excel in timed test environment- Nov 23
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease. 
Nov 2510:00 AM EST
-11:00 AM EST
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors.
05 Jun 2025, 09:11
Kudos
Bookmarks
E
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
95%
(hard)
Question Stats:
46% (02:36) correct
54%
(02:34)
wrong
based on 78
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
It would be a mistake to dismiss all forms of human enhancement. The idea that medicine should seek to augment the body, not just restore it to health when it goes wrong, has plenty of merit. The key to maximising the benefits and minimising the risks will be to drive out the quacks and bring this rapidly growing project into the scientific mainstream.
Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument above?
A) Gene therapy, once considered risky speculative science, has become a regulated and highly successful mainstream treatment for several diseases after decades of rigorous clinical evaluation.
B) Countries with the strongest regulations against untested biomedical interventions report lower incidences of harmful side effects from experimental treatments overall.
C) Public trust in scientific institutions is highly correlated with the perception that these institutions rigorously police unethical or dangerous practices within their fields.
D) Legislators who reference historical parallels to eugenics when debating enhancement policy tend to be more critical of the technology than those who focus solely on current evidence.
E) Historically, moving controversial biomedical research from unregulated private labs into university and pharmaceutical environments significantly reduced harmful incidents by enforcing clinical trial protocols and peer review.
A) This shows a specific therapy benefited from science but doesn't explicitly show the *transition from quackery to mainstream* reduced risks for that field overall. 'Rigorous evaluation' might imply it, but is vaguer than E.
B) Strong regulations might help, but the argument specifically proposes bringing the project *into the scientific mainstream*. This is about national regulatory frameworks, not necessarily the 'mainstream science' integration path.
C) Trust might be good, but it doesn't demonstrate that the *proposed action* (integrating into mainstream) *itself* minimizes risks.
D) Eugenics awareness making critics more critical might even go against the argument's call not to dismiss enhancement entirely.
E) Correct. This provides direct historical evidence that moving controversial biomedical practices from fringe/unregulated settings (analogous to 'quacks') into mainstream scientific institutions reduced harm. Strongly supports the claim that this approach minimizes risks.
To strengthen the argument that integrating enhancement 'into the scientific mainstream' minimizes risks, look for evidence linking that integration process to reduced harm. E provides just that. A focuses on the outcome for one therapy, not the process transition. B mentions regulation without the 'mainstream science' context. C is about trust, not minimized risk. D weakens by suggesting the eugenics echo problem makes dismissal more likely.
Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument above?
A) Gene therapy, once considered risky speculative science, has become a regulated and highly successful mainstream treatment for several diseases after decades of rigorous clinical evaluation.
B) Countries with the strongest regulations against untested biomedical interventions report lower incidences of harmful side effects from experimental treatments overall.
C) Public trust in scientific institutions is highly correlated with the perception that these institutions rigorously police unethical or dangerous practices within their fields.
D) Legislators who reference historical parallels to eugenics when debating enhancement policy tend to be more critical of the technology than those who focus solely on current evidence.
E) Historically, moving controversial biomedical research from unregulated private labs into university and pharmaceutical environments significantly reduced harmful incidents by enforcing clinical trial protocols and peer review.
Show SpoilerHints
The argument attributes risk minimization to a specific cause: moving the project into the scientific mainstream. Strengthen it by showing that this specific transition leads to reduced risks.
Show SpoilerExplanations
A) This shows a specific therapy benefited from science but doesn't explicitly show the *transition from quackery to mainstream* reduced risks for that field overall. 'Rigorous evaluation' might imply it, but is vaguer than E.
B) Strong regulations might help, but the argument specifically proposes bringing the project *into the scientific mainstream*. This is about national regulatory frameworks, not necessarily the 'mainstream science' integration path.
C) Trust might be good, but it doesn't demonstrate that the *proposed action* (integrating into mainstream) *itself* minimizes risks.
D) Eugenics awareness making critics more critical might even go against the argument's call not to dismiss enhancement entirely.
E) Correct. This provides direct historical evidence that moving controversial biomedical practices from fringe/unregulated settings (analogous to 'quacks') into mainstream scientific institutions reduced harm. Strongly supports the claim that this approach minimizes risks.
To strengthen the argument that integrating enhancement 'into the scientific mainstream' minimizes risks, look for evidence linking that integration process to reduced harm. E provides just that. A focuses on the outcome for one therapy, not the process transition. B mentions regulation without the 'mainstream science' context. C is about trust, not minimized risk. D weakens by suggesting the eugenics echo problem makes dismissal more likely.
Archived Topic
Hi there,
This topic has been closed and archived due to inactivity or violation of community quality standards. No more replies are possible here.
Where to now? Join ongoing discussions on thousands of quality questions in our Critical Reasoning (CR) Forum
Still interested in this question? Check out the "Best Topics" block below for a better discussion on this exact question, as well as several more related questions.
Thank you for understanding, and happy exploring!
10 Jun 2025, 19:36
Kudos
Bookmarks
We need an option that supports the idea that moving enhancement into the scientific mainstream (with regulation, peer review, etc.) will maximize benefits and minimize risks.
A) Gene therapy... became mainstream after rigorous evaluation.
This supports the argument indirectly by showing that a controversial field (like human enhancement) can succeed when properly regulated. However, it doesn’t directly address "driving out quacks" or the risks of unregulated enhancement.
B) Strong regulations reduce harmful side effects.
This supports the idea that regulation minimizes risks, but it focuses on preventing harm rather than integrating enhancement into the mainstream or addressing quacks.
C) Public trust depends on policing unethical practices.
While this relates to scientific integrity, it’s more about public perception than the practical benefits of mainstreaming enhancement.
D) Legislators referencing eugenics are more critical.
This weakens the argument by suggesting that historical biases might hinder enhancement, which is irrelevant to the claim.
E) Moving controversial research into regulated environments (universities, pharma) reduced harmful incidents.
This is the best choice. It directly supports the argument by showing that:
Bringing enhancement into the scientific mainstream (like universities/pharma) reduces harm (due to protocols/peer review).
Drives out quacks by replacing unregulated labs with rigorous institutions.
A) Gene therapy... became mainstream after rigorous evaluation.
This supports the argument indirectly by showing that a controversial field (like human enhancement) can succeed when properly regulated. However, it doesn’t directly address "driving out quacks" or the risks of unregulated enhancement.
B) Strong regulations reduce harmful side effects.
This supports the idea that regulation minimizes risks, but it focuses on preventing harm rather than integrating enhancement into the mainstream or addressing quacks.
C) Public trust depends on policing unethical practices.
While this relates to scientific integrity, it’s more about public perception than the practical benefits of mainstreaming enhancement.
D) Legislators referencing eugenics are more critical.
This weakens the argument by suggesting that historical biases might hinder enhancement, which is irrelevant to the claim.
E) Moving controversial research into regulated environments (universities, pharma) reduced harmful incidents.
This is the best choice. It directly supports the argument by showing that:
Bringing enhancement into the scientific mainstream (like universities/pharma) reduces harm (due to protocols/peer review).
Drives out quacks by replacing unregulated labs with rigorous institutions.
Archived Topic
Hi there,
This topic has been closed and archived due to inactivity or violation of community quality standards. No more replies are possible here.
Where to now? Join ongoing discussions on thousands of quality questions in our Critical Reasoning (CR) Forum
Still interested in this question? Check out the "Best Topics" block above for a better discussion on this exact question, as well as several more related questions.
Thank you for understanding, and happy exploring!
Moderators:
189 posts
