Public health advocate: It is generally true that medications that und
[#permalink]
21 Sep 2023, 06:53
Understand the argument -
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. - Fact
It is also true that whenever such trials are conducted, fewer people have experienced unexpected harmful side effects, thus reducing public health risks. - Fact. Cause and effect relationship - such trials conducted (we know from the 1st sentence that the extensive trials lead to safer drugs)> fewer side effects > less public risk.
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. - The author's tone for the first 2 sentences implied that the author may disagree, and this is what has happened here with "however". The author is calling out a case that "Eliminating the requirement .. of extensive warnings about individual risk factors on FDA-tested drugs > will lead to more public risk - opposite effect) This is a a prediction or the author's (in this case Public Health advocate) stance or conclusion.
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. - Support for the conclusion.
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 (OK); the second is said to be a natural consequence that must follow if the general pattern applies (NO. In the case that the author has called out - the general pattern doesn't follow). Wrong
B The first is a causal relationship that the advocate believes will happen again in the case at issue (in the case at issue - what case? Eliminating the requirement .. of extensive warnings about individual risk factors on FDA-tested drugs - the cause and effect doesn't follow. Here the effect is the opposite - it may harm the public and not less); the second admits a situation in which the relationship
would not hold. (OK)
C The first describes a cause and effect relationship that the advocate believes will not hold in the case at issue (OK as per our argument understanding or pre-thinking);
the second suggests a consideration (fact) that supports that belief (Conclusion/prediction). - Correct
D The first is proof that the advocate uses to support a prediction (opposite relationship); the second states that prediction (the second is not the prediction/conclusion, It's a premise to support the prediction).
E The first acknowledges a consideration (Fact) that weighs against the stance (prediction/ Conclusion) that the advocate supports (OK to some extent); the second is that stance (NO. The second is not a stance/prediction/conclusion, The second supports the stance or prediction or conclusion).