It is currently 21 Oct 2017, 09:19

### 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

# Public health advocate: It is generally true that medication

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 27 Jul 2011
Posts: 183

Kudos [?]: 288 [5], given: 103

### Show Tags

12 Oct 2012, 21:49
5
KUDOS
23
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

95% (hard)

Question Stats:

34% (02:11) correct 66% (02:11) wrong based on 1319 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

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.

Need to know your approach how u decided the ans.
OA after some discussion.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

_________________

If u can't jump the 700 wall , drill a big hole and cross it .. I can and I WILL DO IT ...need some encouragement and inspirations from U ALL

Last edited by BukrsGmat on 13 Oct 2012, 11:50, edited 1 time in total.

Kudos [?]: 288 [5], given: 103

Moderator
Joined: 02 Jul 2012
Posts: 1216

Kudos [?]: 1663 [3], given: 116

Location: India
Concentration: Strategy
GMAT 1: 740 Q49 V42
GPA: 3.8
WE: Engineering (Energy and Utilities)
Re: Bold face cr- It is generally true that medications that [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 Oct 2012, 22:24
3
KUDOS
sujit2k7 wrote:
Question

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. The second is not given as a natural consequence to the first.[

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. The author does not beleive that the causal realtionship in the first statement will happen again. Infact he says that it might lead to serious adverse reactions.

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. Seems like a good contestant. The first statement says tested drugs lead to lesser side effects. The seconds explains a situation where that might not be the case. But the second is the authors belief rather than a consideration to support the belief. So lets hold this with some skepticism

D The first is proof that the advocate uses to support a prediction; the second states that prediction. The first statement is not a proof of anything. It is only a general observance.

E The first acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the stance that the advocate supports; the second is that stance. Between C and this option, this option seems like the better choice. AnswerNeed to know your approach how u decided the ans.
OA after some discussion.

_________________

Did you find this post helpful?... Please let me know through the Kudos button.

Thanks To The Almighty - My GMAT Debrief

GMAT Reading Comprehension: 7 Most Common Passage Types

Kudos [?]: 1663 [3], given: 116

Senior Manager
Joined: 22 Dec 2011
Posts: 294

Kudos [?]: 296 [2], given: 32

Re: Bold face cr- It is generally true that medications that [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Oct 2012, 02:13
2
KUDOS
sujit2k7 wrote:
Question

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.

Need to know your approach how u decided the ans.
OA after some discussion.

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...!

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,

Kudos [?]: 296 [2], given: 32

Moderator
Joined: 01 Sep 2010
Posts: 3355

Kudos [?]: 9071 [3], given: 1154

Re: Bold face cr- It is generally true that medications that [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Oct 2012, 05:15
3
KUDOS
2
This post was
BOOKMARKED
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
_________________

Last edited by carcass on 13 Oct 2012, 11:54, edited 1 time in total.

Kudos [?]: 9071 [3], given: 1154

Moderator
Joined: 02 Jul 2012
Posts: 1216

Kudos [?]: 1663 [0], given: 116

Location: India
Concentration: Strategy
GMAT 1: 740 Q49 V42
GPA: 3.8
WE: Engineering (Energy and Utilities)
Re: Bold face cr- It is generally true that medications that [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Oct 2012, 06:13
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.
_________________

Did you find this post helpful?... Please let me know through the Kudos button.

Thanks To The Almighty - My GMAT Debrief

GMAT Reading Comprehension: 7 Most Common Passage Types

Kudos [?]: 1663 [0], given: 116

Moderator
Joined: 01 Sep 2010
Posts: 3355

Kudos [?]: 9071 [0], given: 1154

Re: Bold face cr- It is generally true that medications that [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Oct 2012, 07:11
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
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 rely their judgement only 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
_________________

Last edited by carcass on 13 Oct 2012, 11:57, edited 1 time in total.

Kudos [?]: 9071 [0], given: 1154

Manager
Joined: 16 Oct 2011
Posts: 128

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

Location: United States
Re: Bold face cr- It is generally true that medications that [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Oct 2012, 07:39
sujit2k7 wrote:
Question

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.

Need to know your approach how u decided the ans.
OA after some discussion.

Hi,

I am sorry if I am wrong, but I have a completely different choice here.

Kindly correct me experts.

The advocate says, it is true..... therefore he certainly feels that FDA standards are much safer than less-researched drugs on any day, but uses a however, just to warn that FDA is all fine, but if you don't encourage to read health risks, you make many patients suffer.

Hence I feel, it can be either A or B.
In A, the second half says - a natural consequence that must follow if the general pattern applies.... But it is more of an exception case that the advocate is discussing, that if something doesn't, something else won`t and it is a situation in which, the causal relationship accepted as true, would not hold.
I think B.

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

Moderator
Joined: 02 Jul 2012
Posts: 1216

Kudos [?]: 1663 [0], given: 116

Location: India
Concentration: Strategy
GMAT 1: 740 Q49 V42
GPA: 3.8
WE: Engineering (Energy and Utilities)
Re: Bold face cr- It is generally true that medications that [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Oct 2012, 08:30
carcass wrote:
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

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.
_________________

Did you find this post helpful?... Please let me know through the Kudos button.

Thanks To The Almighty - My GMAT Debrief

GMAT Reading Comprehension: 7 Most Common Passage Types

Kudos [?]: 1663 [0], given: 116

Manager
Joined: 27 Jul 2011
Posts: 183

Kudos [?]: 288 [0], given: 103

Re: Bold face cr- It is generally true that medications that [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Oct 2012, 11:50
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).
_________________

If u can't jump the 700 wall , drill a big hole and cross it .. I can and I WILL DO IT ...need some encouragement and inspirations from U ALL

Kudos [?]: 288 [0], given: 103

Moderator
Joined: 01 Sep 2010
Posts: 3355

Kudos [?]: 9071 [2], given: 1154

Re: Bold face cr- It is generally true that medications that [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Oct 2012, 12:06
2
KUDOS
MacFauz wrote:
carcass wrote:
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

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.

I said the same thing in other words sorry if the meaning was misunderstood

http://gmatcriticalreasoning.blogspot.i ... difference
_________________

Kudos [?]: 9071 [2], given: 1154

Moderator
Joined: 02 Jul 2012
Posts: 1216

Kudos [?]: 1663 [0], given: 116

Location: India
Concentration: Strategy
GMAT 1: 740 Q49 V42
GPA: 3.8
WE: Engineering (Energy and Utilities)
Re: Bold face cr- It is generally true that medications that [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Oct 2012, 21:07
Thanks for the link.. Generally confident in CR. Although, bold face CRs do trouble me.
_________________

Did you find this post helpful?... Please let me know through the Kudos button.

Thanks To The Almighty - My GMAT Debrief

GMAT Reading Comprehension: 7 Most Common Passage Types

Kudos [?]: 1663 [0], given: 116

Moderator
Joined: 01 Sep 2010
Posts: 3355

Kudos [?]: 9071 [0], given: 1154

Re: Bold face cr- It is generally true that medications that [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Oct 2012, 04:16
MacFauz wrote:
Thanks for the link.. Generally confident in CR. Although, bold face CRs do trouble me.

the problem is the language: is abstract. Per se, is not too difficult though this kind of Cr is tough
_________________

Kudos [?]: 9071 [0], given: 1154

BSchool Forum Moderator
Joined: 23 Jul 2010
Posts: 556

Kudos [?]: 971 [1], given: 321

GPA: 3.4
WE: General Management (Non-Profit and Government)

### Show Tags

12 Nov 2013, 01:21
1
KUDOS
3
This post was
BOOKMARKED
Bumping for review and further discussion

_________________

General Mistakes to Avoid on the GMAT
TOP 10 articles on Time Management on the GMAT
Thanks = Kudos. Kudos are appreciated

Rules for posting on the verbal forum

Kudos [?]: 971 [1], given: 321

Current Student
Joined: 09 Jul 2013
Posts: 25

Kudos [?]: 20 [4], given: 15

Location: United States (WA)
Schools: Foster '18 (M)
GMAT 1: 710 Q44 V44
GPA: 3.65
WE: Military Officer (Military & Defense)

### Show Tags

18 Nov 2013, 08:50
4
KUDOS
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
The answer should be C. Here is how I approached the question:

Step 1: ID the question type. Identify the role (AKA "bold faced" questions). Here our goal is to identify what role the bolded text plays in the argument.

Step 2: Deconstruct the argument. Absolutely essential for these kinds of questions. You can generally classify each sentence in the argument as: a Premise, a Conclusion, or Something else (background information, counter point, etc.). I abbreviate these categories below as "P," "C," or "S."

Here are my argument quick hand notes:
PHA says:
- Generally true (hint / foreshadow that this will be argued against...) that PhIII tested drugs = safer than non tested drugs. (I would classify this as "S" = something else)
- Also "generally true" that these drugs that undergo these tests = less side effects & better for public health. (I would classify this as "S" = something else)
- BUT (shift signal -> we're probably going to get a conclusion here), eliminating label warnings = bad for public health (This is the conclusion).
- Relying only on FDA labels = consumer won't consider side effects and could have more adverse reactions. (This is a Premise/support for the conclusion)
So the argument is S, S (bold), C, P (bold). Now we need to find an answer choice that gives us a S and a P for the bolded text.

Step 3: Remind yourself of the goal: I'm looking for the role the bold-faced text plays in the argument. That would be an S and a P (something else, and a premise).

Step 4: Work from wrong to right:

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.

- You have an S (something else -> a pattern accepted as true) but you have an S as well (result/consequence of the pattern)... 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.

- You have a C (conclusion: author believe this will happen again...which isn't the conclusion) and a S (counter premise: evidence for a conclusion that argues against the authors conclusion). 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.

- You have an S (something the author doesn't believe...background info) and you have a P (premise/evidence that supports the authors conclusion). This is probably it (S and P). Leave this answer choice, but consider the others.

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

- Here is a P (premise/proof to support a conclusion) and a C (the prediction/conclusion)....Eliminate D.

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

- Finally you have an S (couter premise) and a C (the stance = author's conclusion). This one is close and tricky. If you didn't de construct the argument correctly and determined that the second bold faced text is actually the conclusion then you might have picked this one. Remember the "therefore" test which will help you determine cause and effect in an argument.

Would it make sense if I said: Relying on FDA certs would cause more adverse reactions (2nd bold text), THEREFORE eliminating certs would harm public health?
This is sound cause and effect, and tells us that 2nd Bold Text supports the conclusion and is a premise.

Or: eliminating certs would harm public health, THEREFORE relying on FDA certs would cause more adverse reactions .
Reversing the logic and the cause effect doesn't make sense....

Hope this helps.

Kudos [?]: 20 [4], given: 15

Manager
Joined: 24 Oct 2013
Posts: 173

Kudos [?]: 48 [2], given: 83

Schools: LBS '18
GMAT 1: 720 Q49 V38
WE: Design (Transportation)

### Show Tags

25 Sep 2014, 16:32
2
KUDOS
MacFauz wrote:
carcass wrote:
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

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.

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.
Attachments

Screen Shot 2014-09-25 at 1.35.51 AM.png [ 361.19 KiB | Viewed 7294 times ]

Kudos [?]: 48 [2], given: 83

GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10108

Kudos [?]: 262 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

05 Oct 2015, 20:11
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 [?]: 262 [0], given: 0

GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10108

Kudos [?]: 262 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

18 Oct 2016, 04:01
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 [?]: 262 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 22 Feb 2016
Posts: 106

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 208

Location: India
Concentration: Economics, Healthcare
GMAT 1: 690 Q42 V47
GMAT 2: 710 Q47 V39
GPA: 3.57

### Show Tags

02 Nov 2016, 07:13
MacFauz wrote:
sujit2k7 wrote:
Question

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. The second is not given as a natural consequence to the first.[

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. The author does not beleive that the causal realtionship in the first statement will happen again. Infact he says that it might lead to serious adverse reactions.

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. Seems like a good contestant. The first statement says tested drugs lead to lesser side effects. The seconds explains a situation where that might not be the case. But the second is the authors belief rather than a consideration to support the belief. So lets hold this with some skepticism

D The first is proof that the advocate uses to support a prediction; the second states that prediction. The first statement is not a proof of anything. It is only a general observance.

E The first acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the stance that the advocate supports; the second is that stance. Between C and this option, this option seems like the better choice. AnswerNeed to know your approach how u decided the ans.
OA after some discussion.

Even I thought it to be E but the answer is C.

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 208

Director
Joined: 17 Dec 2012
Posts: 608

Kudos [?]: 517 [0], given: 16

Location: India

### Show Tags

01 Jun 2017, 02:08
BukrsGmat wrote:

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.

Need to know your approach how u decided the ans.
OA after some discussion.

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.
_________________

Srinivasan Vaidyaraman
Sravna
http://www.sravnatestprep.com/regularcourse.php

Pay After Use
Standardized Approaches

Kudos [?]: 517 [0], given: 16

Public health advocate: It is generally true that medication   [#permalink] 01 Jun 2017, 02:08
Display posts from previous: Sort by