The article Shock therapy for mental patients will be reviewed continu

Question

The article Shock therapy for mental patients will be reviewed continues the ignorant tradition of demonizing electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) in the media (the very use of the anachronistic and misleading phrase shock therapy is unwarranted) without presenting the compelling reasons for its continued use. Most of the facts and quotations in the article, including the gratuitous final paragraph about pigs in an abattoir, are simply taken from an article by Davar in Issues in Medical Ethics, without questioning whether Davars presentation of the issue is an unbiased and scientifically accurate one. What Ms. Davar, and by extension Ms. Jain, has done is simply cite authorities who agree with her point of view, quote statistics without context, use an abundance of negative adjectives, and ignore outright the empirically proven benefits (often life-saving) of ECT in many categories of mentally-ill patients. This is shabby and irresponsible medical journalism. While this is not the place to dispute, point-by-point, Ms. Davars presentation of her position and Ms. Jains repetition of it, I would like to quote, to counter their negative emphasis, from Andrew Solomons widely read, intensively researched, highly respected book, The Noonday Demon: An Anatomy of Depression. Solomon writes: Antidepressants are effective   about 50 percent of the time, perhaps a bit more; ECT seems to have some significant impact between 75 and 90 percent of the time.

Many patients feel substantially better within a few days of having an ECT treatment a boon particularly striking in contrast to the long, slow process of medication response. ECT is particularly appropriate for the severely suicidal for patients who repeatedly injure themselves and whose situation is therefore mortally urgent because of its rapid action and high response rate, and it is used in pregnant women, the sick, and the elderly, because it does not have the systemic side effects or drug-interaction problems of most medications.

There are, indeed, problems with the administration of ECT, especially in a country like India with its poor health infrastructure. It would be foolish to deny that the practice is subject to abuse (as Solomon and numerous Indian writers report). The continued use of direct ECT (without the use of an anesthetic) is certainly a matter of concern and a concerted effort to implement national guidelines making modified ECT (using an anesthetic) mandatory is as necessary as it is laudatory. But we can all do without more pieces of journalism which perpetuate the myth that ECT is a medically unjustified, indeed barbaric practice, tantamount to torture. This ignorant view, equally prevalent in the West as it is in India, has more to do with movies like One Flew Over The Cuckoos Nest than with scientific fact.   1 
 1. It can be inferred that the author believes that the author of the article mentioned in the first line

I.  fails to question her source material rigorously
 II.  includes unwarranted matter
 III.  uses an excess of pejorative terms

A. I only 
B. I and II only 
C. I and III only 
D. III only 
E. I, II and III

2 
 2. The authors attitude towards ECT is best described as a

A. determined neutrality 
B. mild criticism 
C. wholehearted approbation 
D. qualified approval 
E. laudatory justification

3 
 3. The authors makes his point primarily by

A. offering a particular authority as a counterview 
B. attacking one authors lack of social responsibility 
C. criticizing the mindset of medical journalists 
D. a reasoned discussion of the merits and demerits of a therapy 
E. offering an objective evaluation

Adapted from an article written by Jay Vithalani (used with permission of the author)

Source:   Www.MajorTests.Com  
Difficulty Level:   700

Sajjad1994 · Accepted Answer

Official Explanation

1. It can be inferred that the author believes that the author of the article mentioned in the first line

Explanation:

All three are correct. Point one is indicated by the phrase without questioning; point two by gratuitous final paragraph; point three by abundance of negative adjectives.

Correct Answer: E

2. The authors attitude towards ECT is best described as a

Explanation:

The author seems to think that ECT has proven benefits, but also points out in the last paragraph that there are problems. Hence his attitude is a qualified approval.

Correct Answer: D

3. The authors makes his point primarily by

Explanation:

The author disapproves of a certain article and wishes to urge his readers to examine the issue in the light of other evidence. To counter their negative emphasis the author refers to only one authority Solomon. Hence, he makes his point by offering Solomons book as a counterview. The author himself cannot be shown to be objective and does not do enough to count as a reasoned discussion.

Correct Answer: A

Hope it Helps

arunavamunshi1988 · Answer

Indeed difficult passage. Can anybody explain the ans of question 2 and 3?

goforgmat · Answer

2. The author�s attitude towards ECT is best described as a

Before looking at the choices , we can infer that the Author supports using ECT for mentally depressed patients. His support is reflected through out the passage but he also expressed in the last para the demerits and the need of control in using ECT. Keeping this in mind evaluate the answer choices.

A. determined neutrality   He is for ECT. hence worng  
B. mild criticism   He is not criticizing ECT.   
C. wholehearted approbation   Not sure what approbation is ? Lets reevaluate this later  
D. qualified approval   This sounds right in tune with his tone through out the passage  
E. laudatory justification   He is not just laudatory but also expresses the need of control

3. The author�s makes his point primarily by

Before looking at the answer choices lets reflect on the structure of the passage.
A view point published in an article is presented and a counter viewpoint that the author endorses is presented. The author in the end also expresses what he thinks are the demerits and suggestions to make ECT better.

A. offering a particular authority as a counter-view   Seems right  
B. attacking one author�s lack of social responsibility   Its no where implied  
C. criticizing the mindset of medical journalists   He is not criticizing the mindset of anyone. simply advocating for ECT by presenting actual information  
D. a reasoned discussion of the merits and demerits of a therapy   he is discussing the merits of it by presenting a counter view.Hence A seems right  
E. offering an objective evaluation   This is not an objective evaluation. He presents his viewpoint

If there is a better explanation for Question 3, Please explain.

HG0815 · Answer

The article ???Shock therapy for mental patients will be reviewed???
continues the ignorant tradition of demonizing electroconvulsive
 therapy (ECT) in the media (the very use of the anachronistic
 and misleading phrase ???shock therapy??? is unwarranted) without
5 presenting the compelling reasons for its continued use.

1. It can be inferred that the author believes that the author of the article mentioned in the first line
I fails to question her source material rigorously
 -> without 5 presenting the compelling reasons for its continued use
II includes unwarranted matter
 -> the very use of the anachronistic and misleading phrase 'shock therapy' is unwarranted
III uses an excess of pejorative terms
 -> continues the ignorant tradition 
A. I only 
B. I and II only 
C. I and III only 
D. III only 
E. I, II and III -> correct

The author criticizes not the ECT itself but its abuse.
There are some effects about ECT itself in 1st paragraph
So the author's attitude towards ECT is approval.

2. The author???s attitude towards ECT is best described as a

A. determined neutrality -> There is no neutrality 
B. mild criticism -> The author does not criticize ECT itself.
C. wholehearted approbation -> There is some critic about the abuse of ECT, so it is hard to say wholehearted approbation.
D. qualified approval -> Keep
E. laudatory justification -> Same as C

So D is correct

3. The author???s makes his point primarily by

A. offering a particular authority as a counterview 
 -> Keep
 'I would like to quote to counter their negative 20 emphasis, from Solomon's widely ~ '
B. attacking one author???s lack of social responsibility 
 -> Not just one author's lack of social responsibility
C. criticizing the mindset of medical journalists 
 -> Keep
 'This is shabby and irresponsible medical journalism'
D. a reasoned discussion of the merits and demerits of a therapy
 -> There is no demerits of a therapy. 
E. offering an objective evaluation
 -> This argument is not objective.
 There is an author's argument.

The author's point of view is criticize. So answer is A.

Debashis Roy · Answer

SajjadAhmad

For Q.no3:

I was also confused with option C, as the author discusses both the merits (in Para 1 and 2) and demerits(Para 3) of the treatment and still supports it.

The point mentioned in option (a) "offering a particular authority as a counterview" is true but only in a part of the passage.

Please shed your thoughts.

Thanks
Debashis Roy

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Correct Answer: A

Explanation:

The author disapproves of a certain article and wishes to urge his readers to examine the issue in the light of other evidence. To counter their negative emphasis the author refers to only one authority Solomon. Hence, he makes his point by offering Solomons book as a counterview. The author himself cannot be shown to be objective and does not do enough to count as a reasoned discussion.

Does this text convinced you? if not, kindly let me know.

Hope it Helps

Midhilesh489 · Answer

SajjadAhmad  I understood the solution for 3rd ques and I am convinced with the solution but how to eliminate option D
Passage mentions there are indeed some problems(demerits) and merits (75% to 90%... it helps) 
Should the mere stating of merits and demerits be considered "reasoned discussion"?

Ozzy11100 · Answer

The OA for question 3 is not very convincing.

While the author does present "a particular authority as a counterview" at one point, relegating the author's entire argument to this classification seems unfair and inaccurate.

For example, it is not clear that  chapter two  is an appeal to Soloman's authority; what is clear is that  chapter two offers a "reasoned discussion of the merits ... of a particular therapy."

The only evidence clearly attributable to Soloman's authority is evidenced in the sentence: "Antidepressants are effective   about 50 percent of the time, perhaps a bit more; ECT seems to have some significant impact between 75 and 90 percent of the time."  One. Sentence.

Further, chapter three clearly includes evidence from a source that isn't Soloman in the sentence "It would be foolish to deny that the practice is subject to abuse (as Solomon and  numerous Indian writers report )."

This OA is highly suspect and, in my opinion, draws the validity of the source strongly into question.

The article Shock therapy for mental patients will be reviewed continu

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

My Rewards

GMAT Reading Comprehension (RC) Questions

The article Shock therapy for mental patients will be reviewed continu

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

My Rewards