Alonso: the introduction of a new drug into the marketplace should be

A for me too.

The social impact of the new antihistamine is much better understood than that of the most new drugs being tested.

In spite of much better understood social impact the new antihistamine has vague social impact thus the other new drugs[whose social impact is less understood than the new anti..] need to wait for a clear social impact

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

The argument in this problem contains a glaring case of another common logical fallacy: generalization. Simplified into syllogism structure, the argument reads as follows:

Major Premise: Drugs should not be brought to market if their social understanding is poor.

Minor Premise: The social understanding of one drug is poor.

Conclusion: We should stop bringing all drugs to the market.

This broad, sweeping conclusion is based on one isolated instance, so clearly the argument is quite weak. What is a great way to improve generalization? Show that the one example is typical of most. Answer choice A does exactly that, showing that most drugs being brought to marketplace are worse than the antihistamine and thus greatly strengthening the argument.

GMATNinja & GMATNinjaTwo, Why answer choice E is incorrect? I am struggling with this problem.

when we think about the paragraph, there are three parts:

(1) thesis: introducing new drugs ---------------> social impact
(2) Example to prove the thesis: he introduced the new antihistamine as an example to support his idea
(3) conclusion: introducing new drugs should be reduced

Option B seems nice, but but focusing on the author's thesis, it is built on the example he mentioned (the new antihistamine), which means that it is the main key to strengthen or weaken the argument.

a logical question would be: is the new antihistamine a good example? is it reliable enough to build his thesis on?

Option A clearly sets the new antihistamine as a benchmark for the newly introduced drugs;
in other words: if the new antihistamine is "far from clear" although "better understood", the situation of the other newly drugs in the marketplace is definitely worse.

Technically an LSAT question as well: https://gmatclub.com/forum/consumer-adv ... fl=similar

Alonso: the introduction of a new drug into the marketplace should be contingent upon our having a good understanding of its social impact. However, the social impact of the newly marketed antihistamine is far from clear. It is obvious, then, that there should be a general reduction in the pace of bringing to the marketplace new drugs that are now being created.

In other words,

Social impact of antihistamine = not clear at all
Therefore, reduce the pace of introduction for all new drugs

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?


A. The social impact of the new antihistamine is much better understood than that of the most new drugs being tested. - This means that the antihistamine is the best among the lot of new drugs being tested. If this 'best' option still does not suffice the social impact criteria, then we can reasonably infer that the social impact of those new drugs (whose social impact are less understood as compared to antihistamine) are much more difficult to comprehend. Hence, on the basis of the information given in the passage, it is reasonable for us to implement the market-wide reduction in the pace of introduction of such new drugs. Therefore, (A) is the right answer choice.

B. The social impact of some of the new drugs being tested is poorly understood. - Does 'some' include antihistamine? How many new drugs are included under the 'some' category? Does this 'some' represent the majority of the new drugs being tested? (B) leaves a lot of room for doubt. Hence, eliminate (B)

C. The economic success of some drugs is inversely proportional to how well we understand their social impact. - irrelevant to the conclusion drawn. Hence, eliminate (C)

D. The new antihistamine is chemically similar to some of the new drugs being tested. - If there is some chemical similarity between the new drugs and antihistamine, then we can reasonably place such drugs under one common category (based on the similarity in the chemical properties). What is true for one particular category of drugs need not be true for the all 'new' drugs. Hence, we cannot reasonably arrive at the conclusion drawn using (D). Hence, eliminate (D)

E. The new antihistamine should be next on the market only if most new drugs being tested should be on the market also. - This does not help us establish whether we need to reduce the pace of introduction of the new drugs. hence, eliminate (E)

­
A) The social impact of the new antihistamine is much better understood than that of most new drugs being tested.
In this context, if the social impact of the new antihistamine—which Alonso argues is far from clear—is actually much better understood than that of most new drugs being tested, this comparison significantly strengthens Alonso's argument for a general reduction in the pace of bringing to the marketplace new drugs that are now being created. It does so by establishing a baseline of understanding about social impacts that is worryingly low. If the antihistamine's social impact, which is considered unclear, is actually among the better-understood cases, then the lack of understanding regarding the social impact of other new drugs must be even more pronounced. 

This reasoning suggests that if even the "better" cases are not clear enough, the situation is likely more dire for the majority of new drugs, thus strongly justifying the call for a more cautious approach in drug introduction to the market. The implication here is that the issue of unclear social impacts is not an isolated incident but a systemic problem, making a compelling case for slowing down the drug approval process to ensure that the social impacts of new drugs are adequately understood. 

B) The social impact of some of the new drugs being tested is poorly understood.
- While this statement appears to support Alonso's argument by suggesting that there is a lack of understanding of social impacts among new drugs, it doesn't necessarily strengthen the argument to the same degree as A. B indicates a problem with some new drugs, but it doesn't provide a basis for comparison or establish a standard. It suggests an issue but doesn't imply that the issue is systemic or that even the drugs with relatively better-understood impacts are still not understood well enough.

The critical difference is that A not only highlights a problem but also sets a comparative standard that amplifies the concern. It suggests that even when the social impact of a drug is better understood than most, it's still insufficient. This realization forces a reevaluation of the entire drug approval process, underscoring the argument's premise that a thorough understanding of social impacts is crucial before new drugs are introduced to the market. 

B supports the argument by pointing out a problem but lacks the comparative impact that A provides, which more directly and forcefully backs the call for a cautious approach. This is why A is seen as the stronger choice for strengthening Alonso's argument.

C) The economic success of some drugs is inversely proportional to how well we understand their social impact.
- While interesting, this does not directly strengthen the argument about delaying drug introduction based on understanding of social impact. It introduces a separate issue (economic success versus understanding of social impact) that doesn't directly support the need for a general reduction in the pace of bringing new drugs to the marketplace.

D) The new antihistamine is chemically similar to some of the new drugs being tested.
- Chemical similarity does not directly relate to the argument about social impact. This statement does not strengthen the argument for a slowdown based on the clarity of social impact.

E) The new antihistamine should be next on the market only if most new drugs being tested should be on the market also.
- This statement seems to condition the introduction of the antihistamine on the readiness of other drugs but does not strengthen the argument about understanding social impact before market introduction.

Therefore, option A is the correct answer.­

I chose choice A and rejected answer choice E because it talks about the new drugs that are 'being tested', whereas the argument is concerned about slowing the pace of introduction to the marketplace of the drugs that are ' now being created'.­

Also, is choice E trying to say that new drugs will be in the market BEFORE antihistamines are released in the market??

Is it correct logic to eliminate choice E?­

KarishmaB , Can you please share your thoughts on option A , B and D ? MartyMurray

Premises:­
A new drug should be marketed only after we understand its social impact.
The social impact of the newly marketed antihistamine is far from clear.

Conclusion: There should be a general reduction in the pace of bringing to the marketplace new drugs that are now being created.

There is a leap in the conclusion. Why should we hold back new drugs that are being created? The social impact of the  antihistamine is not clear - ok. That is a problem. But why do we conclude that hold back all new drugs that are being created? To strengthen it, we need to say that their social impact is also not understood. 

A. The social impact of the new antihistamine is much better understood than that of the most new drugs being tested.

This tells us that if the antihistamine is bad, the others are even worse - social impact wise. Hence it makes sense to hold them back and it supports the author's argument. 

B. The social impact of some of the new drugs being tested is poorly understood.

"Some" could mean anything. It could be just 2 also. It doesn't make sense to hold back ALL new drugs being created. 

C. The economic success of some drugs is inversely proportional to how well we understand their social impact.

Irrelevant. 

D. The new antihistamine is chemically similar to some of the new drugs being tested.

Does chemical composition define "social impact"? We don't know. Also, use of "some" makes this incorrect too.

E. The new antihistamine should be next on the market only if most new drugs being tested should be on the market also..

No logic to this. The author says that the new antihistamine should not be on the market because it is not understood. Why would it be necessary for most new drugs to be on the market for the antihistamine to be on the market?

Answer (A)