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 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.
17 Jun 2025, 11:18
Kudos
Bookmarks
B
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:
30% (02:17) correct
70%
(02:37)
wrong
based on 30
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
METHADONE IS “the best tool we have” to fight opioid addiction, says Ashish Thakrar, a doctor at the University of Pennsylvania’s school of medicine. Yet many of his patients are unable to get it. At his hospital, Dr Thakrar can administer methadone for pain or for opioid addiction. But as soon as he steps across the street to his outpatient addiction clinic, he complains, he is barred from doing so by federal regulations. Methadone rules are “very, very silly right now”, he sighs.
Which of the following, if true, best explains why Dr. Thakrar can administer methadone in the hospital but not in his clinic across the street?
A) The hospital holds a legacy federal waiver exempting it from certain methadone regulations, while the clinic must meet stricter licensing criteria.
B) Federal regulations permit methadone administration for addiction treatment only in specially licensed facilities, excluding this clinic.
C) Federal regulations require that methadone for addiction be administered only by physicians who completed residency at the institution where they practice.
D) The clinic meets federal standards for addiction counseling but falls under a separate regulatory agency for the dispensing of controlled substances like methadone.
E) Federal rules require methadone for addiction to be dispensed only at facilities providing 24-hour medical supervision, which the clinic lacks.
A) While plausible, this introduces the unsupported concept of a waiver. The stimulus does not mention exemptions, and the discrepancy is clearly tied to federal regulations applied differently to facilities.
B) Correctly resolves the paradox by using the stimulus's explicit reference to federal regulations restricting addiction treatment to specially licensed facilities. This explains why the hospital qualifies but the clinic does not.
C) Focuses on physician credentials, but the stimulus indicates Dr. Thakrar practices in both locations. This distractor overlooks that facility licensing, not personal qualifications, causes the restriction.
D) Confuses the issue by suggesting different regulatory agencies. The stimulus specifically attributes the clinic's restriction to federal regulations, not jurisdictional splits.
E) This unsupported requirement for 24-hour supervision seems plausible but is never mentioned in the stimulus. The actual explanation lies in the facility licensing framework.
Option B resolves the paradox by anchoring directly to the stimulus's key detail: federal regulations limit addiction treatment to specially licensed facilities. Distractors test common misinterpretations: A invokes unsupported waivers, C shifts to physician residency, D implies agency conflicts, and E adds 24-hour supervision not mentioned in the text. All distractors overlook the stimulus's explicit facility-based licensing framework.
Which of the following, if true, best explains why Dr. Thakrar can administer methadone in the hospital but not in his clinic across the street?
A) The hospital holds a legacy federal waiver exempting it from certain methadone regulations, while the clinic must meet stricter licensing criteria.
B) Federal regulations permit methadone administration for addiction treatment only in specially licensed facilities, excluding this clinic.
C) Federal regulations require that methadone for addiction be administered only by physicians who completed residency at the institution where they practice.
D) The clinic meets federal standards for addiction counseling but falls under a separate regulatory agency for the dispensing of controlled substances like methadone.
E) Federal rules require methadone for addiction to be dispensed only at facilities providing 24-hour medical supervision, which the clinic lacks.
Show SpoilerHints
Focus precisely on the federal regulatory framework described in the stimulus, particularly the role of facility licensing. Eliminate options that introduce unsupported conditions or misdirect from the location-specific restrictions.
Show SpoilerExplanations
A) While plausible, this introduces the unsupported concept of a waiver. The stimulus does not mention exemptions, and the discrepancy is clearly tied to federal regulations applied differently to facilities.
B) Correctly resolves the paradox by using the stimulus's explicit reference to federal regulations restricting addiction treatment to specially licensed facilities. This explains why the hospital qualifies but the clinic does not.
C) Focuses on physician credentials, but the stimulus indicates Dr. Thakrar practices in both locations. This distractor overlooks that facility licensing, not personal qualifications, causes the restriction.
D) Confuses the issue by suggesting different regulatory agencies. The stimulus specifically attributes the clinic's restriction to federal regulations, not jurisdictional splits.
E) This unsupported requirement for 24-hour supervision seems plausible but is never mentioned in the stimulus. The actual explanation lies in the facility licensing framework.
Option B resolves the paradox by anchoring directly to the stimulus's key detail: federal regulations limit addiction treatment to specially licensed facilities. Distractors test common misinterpretations: A invokes unsupported waivers, C shifts to physician residency, D implies agency conflicts, and E adds 24-hour supervision not mentioned in the text. All distractors overlook the stimulus's explicit facility-based licensing framework.
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!
21 Jun 2025, 01:39
Kudos
Bookmarks
Not sure if this is even a valid question stem
can some expert please confirm
DmitryFarber
IanStewart
@Gmatmurray
GMATNinja
KarishmaB
also if B should be the answer,
Thakrar says rules are silly
while B says that the administration is permitted at licensed facilities, so the clinic might not be licensed, which is why Thakrar could not use the methadone there,
but this reason is far from silly
can some expert please confirm
DmitryFarber
IanStewart
@Gmatmurray
GMATNinja
KarishmaB
also if B should be the answer,
Thakrar says rules are silly
while B says that the administration is permitted at licensed facilities, so the clinic might not be licensed, which is why Thakrar could not use the methadone there,
but this reason is far from silly
ravikirancg
21 Jun 2025, 04:00
Kudos
Bookmarks
RiyaJ0032
Probably half the time when I post in the Verbal forum, I encourage people to use only official Verbal questions for practice, and this question illustrates why. There are many issues with this question, but the most important is found in the logic of the "Explanation". That explanation seems to think we are trying to find support in the stem for one of the answer choices. But that is the precise opposite of what we are trying to do -- we want to find support in one of the answer choices for the situation described in the stem. In real CR questions that ask "which of the following, if true...", a correct answer choice will often introduce information unmentioned in the stem, and if you rule those answers out (as the Explanation here suggests we should do), you will get a lot of real CR questions wrong.
There is not a good answer among the choices here, but the one I can most justify is A. We are asked to explain why methadone can be used "in the hospital but not in his clinic". That is, we want to explain two separate things -- why it is possible in the hospital, and why it is impossible in the clinic. Answer A is the only answer that even mentions the hospital.
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!
