Public health advocate: It is generally true that medications that und

Question

Public health advocate:  It is generally true that medications that undergo the extensive FDA Phase III clinical safety testing are much safer than less-researched drugs. It is also true that  whenever such trials are conducted, fewer people have experienced unexpected harmful side effects, thus reducing public health risks.   However, eliminating the requirement that even FDA-tested medications continue to include extensive warnings about individual risk factors would almost certainly harm rather than help public health. Consumers would tend to rely on the FDA’s general certification of safety, and  if no longer encouraged to read about individual risks and drug interactions, many patients would suffer serious adverse reactions.

The two bolded statements serve what purpose in the context of the public health advocate’s argument?

A The first is a general pattern that the advocate accepts as true; the second is said to be a natural consequence that must follow if the general pattern applies.

B The first is a causal relationship that the advocate believes will happen again in the case at issue; the second admits a situation in which the relationship 
 would not hold.

C The first describes a cause and effect relationship that the advocate believes will not hold in the case at issue;
 the second suggests a consideration that supports that belief.

D The first is proof that the advocate uses to support a prediction; the second states that prediction.

E The first acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the stance that the advocate supports; the second is that stance.

gauravkaushik8591 · Accepted Answer

Hi MacFauz,

I got this from the video 'Thurday's with Ron', I know its probably way too late to share. But I still thought I'd share this here for other's benefit. This photo shows what words can be classified under facts and claims, and also identifies words which can be either.

Carcass · Answer

A good challenging question. This is one of the question during the test makes you completely sweaty

here is how I attack always such questions

The first is what: for sure not the conclusion so is or a Premise or X (something else) here is a premise in favour of the conclusion (notice is also true just before).

the second: is nont the conclusion but in somehow support the conclusion though i'm not quite sure if support completely the conclusion of the argument  Consumers would tend to rely on the FDA’s general certification of safety ............it seem something in the middle (notice IF) but for sure not against

Ok after this brief brainstorming in my mind I need a: P and a P (both in somehow are in favour of the conclusion but all things are fuzzy, unclear, I'm not pretty sure -------> this is what I would do during the test)

The choice is narrowed to C and E

E  The first acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the stance that the advocate supports  based on the first bold AND also on the whole context i do not see anything about a position. Here the advocate describe something that could happens if something else is not conducted

the second is that stance.

I do not see here a stance but instead a consideration (notice IF at the beginning of the bold)

For me is C   therefore this one wins

MacFauz · Answer

Answer is E

Jp27 · Answer

Hi...
The con of the argument is below
eliminating the requirement that even FDA-tested medications continue to include extensive warnings about individual risk factors would almost certainly harm rather than help public health.

And the author uses the 2nd bold face to support this view / belief / prediction. 
  if no longer encouraged to read about individual risks and drug interactions, many patients would suffer serious adverse reactions.

1st bold face, below, is a fact that the author acknowledges to be true, but doesn't use this to support his conclusion. (can be seen by the use of key word "however" )
It is also true that  whenever such trials are conducted, fewer people have experienced unexpected harmful side effects, thus reducing public health risks.

So in shot is general statement of truth and 2 is also a fact that he uses to supprort his view...!

Now to the answer choices.

D&E says 2nd is conclusion .... SO WRONG
In A the 1st part is correct, however the 2nd part is NOT A consequence of 1st bold. - Adios A
In B 1st part is the a problem here, the author believes that removing Warning would result in danger hence he believes the causality will be affected if we remove the warnings - Bye bye B

C, the answer without any doubt,

MacFauz · Answer

But the word "consideration" troubles me in option C. I believe that "consideration" in this case is a synonym with "fact". However the second statement does not seem like a fact. Rather, it sounds like an opinion. Please correct me if i'm wrong.

Carcass · Answer

First of all a consideration is not a fact, is what i Think about a situation (could be or not to be true). A fact is a fact what happens, a scenario ( a thief steal my ipod) evidence is stronger than fact ( I saw Mike steal my ipod: mike you are a thief)

In concrete what is the point of the whole situation: ok drugs tested are more safety than not tested. if FDA wants eliminate something at least, FDA should not eliminate something that helps people to understand the risk of drugs. Because if people do not inform theirself and based only their judgement on FDA, and what about if FDA was wrong ??

This is something about the chain in this CR.

For me is C, maybe I'm wrong but am confident, otherwise I would learn something

MacFauz · Answer

Hmmm... My reasoning is that consideration means a fact that has to be taken into account before deciding on something. Anyway... The OA along with the OE would really be an eye opener.

BukrsGmat · Answer

Good discussion ..
And the OA: C
Kudos to C
Official explanation:
This is the credited response. Phrase #1 gives a generally true causal relationship (FDA testing produces safer drugs), but this relationship will not occur in a particular case where another variable is changed (i.e., if testing results in fewer required warnings). Phrase #2 explains that the usual effects (safer drugs) will not apply in such circumstances because of a REASON (i.e., because people will stop thinking about individual risks).

Carcass · Answer

I said the same thing in other words

sorry if the meaning was misunderstood read this one. it is all about these differences soooo important https://gmatcriticalreasoning.blogspot.i ... difference

dentobizz · Answer

Bumping for review and further discussion
New GmatClub project Click here

Theory on Boldfaced Questions
GMAT HACKS
https://www.gmathacks.com/critical-reaso ... oning.html

MANGOOSH
https://magoosh.com/gmat/2013/gmat-criti ... questions/

MASTER GMAT
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fb6tkQHa0Wo

e-gmat
https://gmatclub.com/forum/many-gmat-tes ... 45093.html

Kaplan
https://gmatclub.com/forum/bold-face-que ... 62893.html

debaratidg · Answer

-------------------

A. The first is a general pattern that the advocate accepts as true; the second is said to be a natural consequence that must follow if the general pattern applies.  Second part wrong, it is not the natural consequence if people are suffering less risks during trial.

B. The first is a causal relationship that the advocate believes will happen again in the case at issue; the second admits a situation in which the relationship 
would not hold.  People suffer less at trails (cause) ---> FDA removes warning signs and hence no adverse effect on people (effect). first part ---> will happen again? (wrong). Second part relationship holds, the consequence isn't explained at all.

C. The first describes a cause and effect relationship that the advocate believes will not hold in the case at issue;
the second suggests a consideration that supports that belief.  People suffer less at trails (cause) ---> FDA removes warning signs and hence no adverse effect on people (effect). Effect doesnt hold --> it will affect people. So first part right. Second shows how it will not hold. So correct.

D. The first is proof that the advocate uses to support a prediction; the second states that prediction.  People suffering less in trials isnt the proof. Its consequent effect is at the core of the argument. What could happen if FDA removes warning signs. So first part is wrong. Second is a prediction. So correct. But as a whole D is wrong.

E. The first acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the stance that the advocate supports; the second is that stance.  the advocate takes a stance or stands with the belief that removing warning signs will affect people badly. First doesnt acknowledge that stand. it is a mere fact. it does nothing. its consequence affects the advocates's stand. so E is out.

OA  C

sun01 · Answer

Public health advocate: It is generally true that medications that undergo the extensive FDA Phase III clinical safety testing are much safer than less-researched drugs. It is also true that whenever  such trials are conducted, fewer people have experienced unexpected harmful side effects, thus reducing public health risks.  However, eliminating the requirement that even FDA-tested medications continue to include extensive warnings about individual risk factors would almost certainly harm rather than help public health. Consumers would tend to rely on the FDA’s general certification of safety, and  if no longer encouraged to read about individual risks and drug interactions, many patients would suffer serious adverse reactions.

The two bolded statements serve what purpose in the context of the public health advocate’s argument?

The first bold face "such trials are conducted, fewer people have experienced unexpected harmful side effects, thus reducing public health risks" expresses cause and effect relationship. FDI trials of medications -------------> few harmful side effects observed

This paragraph "However, eliminating the requirement that even FDA-tested medications continue to include extensive warnings about individual risk factors would almost certainly harm rather than help public health" expresses a resulting possibility of a course of action i.e. if warnings about risk factors would be removed from FDA tested medication.

This paragraph "Consumers would tend to rely on the FDA’s general certification of safety, and if no longer encouraged to read about individual risks and drug interactions, many patients would suffer serious adverse reactions" supports the second para stating that consumer without having individual guidelines about safety and drug effects would have serious adverse reaction.  -   Second bold face contradicts the cause-effect relationship if warnings are removed.

A. The first is a general pattern that the advocate accepts as true; the second is said to be a natural consequence that must follow if the general pattern applies.

B. The first is a causal relationship that the advocate believes will happen again in the case at issue; the second admits a situation in which the relationship 
would not hold.

C. The first describes a cause and effect relationship that the advocate believes will not hold in the case at issue;
the second suggests a consideration that supports that belief. ------ Only C fits in the slot.

D. The first is proof that the advocate uses to support a prediction; the second states that prediction.

E. The first acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the stance that the advocate supports; the second is that stance.

SVaidyaraman · Answer

The choice narrows down between C and E

First bold face:C says first boldface is a  cause and effect relationship that the advocate believes will not hold in the case at issue . which is true
E says that the first bold face  acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the stance that the advocate supports , which is true

Second bold face:C says it  suggests a consideration that supports that belief.  which is true. It is a consideration because the author uses the word "if" at the beginning. E says it  is that stance.  mentioned while describing the first bold face. But second cannot be a stance because it is a hypothetical happening and not the author's view. It is like saying "let us consider" and therefore not a stance.

Diya52 · Answer

Conclusion - eliminating the requirement that even FDA-tested medications continue to include extensive warnings about individual risk factors would almost certainly harm rather than help public health
- BF1 – A general truth – FDA drugs are safe and the clinical trials also indicate the same
- BF2 – A consideration. If the plan of eliminating the warnings is carried out then it will lead to a certain outcome (people will suffer adverse reactions)
The real contest is between C and E. A is wrong because BF2 is not a natural consequence. B is wrong because the author does not believe that BF1 will happen again in the case at issue. D is wrong because BF1 is not used as proof to support a prediction. 
Between C and E. C is better. 
Flaws in option E - The first acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the stance that the advocate supports; the second is that stance – BF1 is not a consideration. It is a finding or an observation. It does not weigh against the stance. The author says only if the warnings are eliminated, the drugs might harm public health. Nothing to do with the positive results shown by the trials. Even if you consider that BF1 is against the stance, BF2 is definitely not a stance/ position of the author. It is a consideration or outcome if a certain plan is implemented.

akshat3010 · Answer

VeritasKarishma  CR superpro expert. Ma'am, Request your help here

gambit07 · Answer

I fail to understand the answer c. Which portion of the paragraph does suggest that the cause and effect relationship mentioned in OA won't work in this case?

mSKR · Answer

X happens 
But
If Y is not done then X won’t happen

Relation between bold1 and bold2:
Bold 1 against is bold2 is true
Bold1 1 supports if bold2 is false

C  The first describes a cause and effect relationship  that the advocate believes  will not hold  in  the case at issue ;
the second suggests a consideration that supports that belief.

first describes a cause and effect relationship: 
whenever such trials are conducted, fewer people have experienced unexpected harmful side effects, thus reducing public health risks. 
Cause: fewer people have experienced unexpected harmful side effects,
Effect: reducing public health risks.

the case at issue :  eliminating the requirement that even FDA-tested medications continue to include extensive warnings about individual risk factors would almost certainly harm rather than help public health 
cause and effect relationship   will not hold  = many patients would suffer serious adverse reactions. ( but it was expected that public health risks would be reduced)

Cause: less risk -- > effect: benefit
But if not read about individual risks and drug interactions, then NO BENEFIT
Means effect will not hold true .

Now read C again:

1st bold statement says cause and effect relationship , the author believes this statement would not hold true in one case.
case: issue -->eliminating the requirement that even FDA-tested medications continue to include extensive warnings about individual risk factors would almost certainly harm rather than help public health

2nd statement: supports this case /issue on which his belief that its a risk for public health would hold true

I hope it helps.

Basshead · Answer

The gist of the health advocate’s argument is that:

- Drugs that have gone through FDA testing are generally safer
- As a result, fewer people experience negative side effects from these drugs
- However, removing the warnings from these FDA tested medications would be a bad thing.
- Why would it be a bad thing? Consumers will no longer be encouraged to read about the risks and therefore will suffer adverse reactions.

The first boldface explains a situation that the public health advocate believes will no longer hold if warning labels are removed. How do we know this? We’re told in the following sentence that “eliminating the requirement that even FDA-tested medications continue to include extensive warnings about individual risk factors would almost certainly harm rather than help public health.”

The second boldface tells us a condition:  if A happens, then B will happen. 
 If no longer encouraged to read about individual risks and drug interactions, many patients would suffer serious adverse reactions.

C matches up perfectly with both.

annevu197 · Answer

Public health advocate: It is generally true that medications that undergo the extensive FDA Phase III clinical safety testing are much safer than less-researched drugs. It is also true that whenever such trials are conducted, fewer people have experienced unexpected harmful side effects, thus reducing public health risks. However, eliminating the requirement that even FDA-tested medications continue to include extensive warnings about individual risk factors would almost certainly harm rather than help public health. Consumers would tend to rely on the FDA’s general certification of safety, and if no longer encouraged to read about individual risks and drug interactions, many patients would suffer serious adverse reactions.

The two bolded statements serve what purpose in the context of the public health advocate’s argument?

First, I look into the relationship of BF1, BF2 vs conclusion
BF1 (-) CL
BF2 (+) CL
Any answer choices go against this relationship, cross out D
Cross out E because BF2 is not the stance

A The first is a general pattern that the advocate accepts as true; the second is said to be a natural consequence that must follow if the general pattern applies.
BF2 doesn't follow if BF1 is true, eliminate A

B The first is a causal relationship that the advocate believes will happen again in the case at issue; the second admits a situation in which the relationship would not hold.

BF1 is not what advocate believes that will happen again, eliminate B

C The first describes a cause and effect relationship that the advocate believes will not hold in the case at issue;
the second suggests a consideration that supports that belief.

C is the answer

Public health advocate: It is generally true that medications that und

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Public health advocate: It is generally true that medications that und

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia