GMAT Question of the Day: Daily via email | Daily via Instagram New to GMAT Club? Watch this Video

It is currently 06 Aug 2020, 03:04

Close

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
Your Progress

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

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

The introduction of new drugs into the market is frequently prevented

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Find Similar Topics 
Manager
Manager
User avatar
G
Status: In last prep stage
Joined: 11 Jun 2017
Posts: 161
GMAT 1: 630 Q44 V33
GMAT 2: 680 Q47 V37
GPA: 3.2
Re: The introduction of new drugs into the market is frequently prevented  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Dec 2018, 10:23
SajjadAhmad wrote:

Premises:

New drugs not being introduced in the market because no trials are being conducted for their effectiveness.
these drugs will be used in future for upcoming generations

Conclusion

Practicing doctors are responsible for absence of introduction of new verified medicine as they fail to persuade or encourage peoples to volunteer for trials of medicine to confirm their authenticity and effectiveness.

Prethinking

Issue with the conclusion is that why doctors are responsible? there may be a lot of other factors that leads people not to volunteer for the trials.




Thanks for the explanation SajjadAhmad.
I took the same premise but went about the conclusion in a different way.My reason for selecting A - it gave a "alternate cause" for suitable patients to not volunteer for clinical trials.So it was not based on - Practicing doctors being responsible for absence of patients .Instead the reason was that drug is experimental and had absence of any treatment .
As you have stated in prethinking:
Issue with the conclusion is that why doctors are responsible? there may be a lot of other factors that leads people not to volunteer for the trials.
Manager
Manager
avatar
G
Joined: 12 Jul 2017
Posts: 221
Location: India
Schools: ISB '21 (A)
GMAT 1: 570 Q43 V26
GMAT 2: 690 Q50 V32
GPA: 3.8
Re: The introduction of new drugs into the market is frequently prevented  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 29 Jun 2019, 01:40
Hi All/Experts,

I think A, and B goes towards strengthening the argument. Please find my reasoning below and help me evaluate whether my evaluation of the question is correct :
Conclusion: Physicians are morally wrong when they fail to encourage patients with currently untreatable disease to go for experimental trials.
Analysis of the argument: The definition of morality is contextual. The author thinks the physicians are morally wrong because they are not inspiring people to go for tests and jeopardizing their lives + the lives of future generations. But what if the definition of morality is that not encouraging people for experimental tests, that could be detrimental for them? Then the argument is weakened.
A. This option strengthens the belief of author because the intent of the tests is to treat untreatable diseases. It's a mild strengthener
B. This option seems to a bit to strengthen the conclusion. The option says that everyone has moral obligation to alleviate suffering when able to do so. Saying this, it reiterates the reasoning that they fail to encourage people because everyone includes physicians and even they have moral obligation they fail to encourage and thus the argument is bolstered. -> Is this reasoning correct?
C. This option has no impact on the passage. It just says that there is a possibility that people who go for trials might not be treated, but the reasoning of morally correct or wrong by the physicians is untouched by this option. This option is out of scope of the argument.
D. This option says that the tests are necessary for getting experimental drugs for patients in question. But this option tells something that will be achieved AFTER the tests, so this option also bears no impact on the argument
E seems to weaken.

Regards,
Rishav
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
P
Joined: 31 Jan 2019
Posts: 401
Location: Switzerland
Concentration: General Management
GPA: 3.9
Re: The introduction of new drugs into the market is frequently prevented  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Aug 2019, 00:51
The introduction of new drugs into the market is frequently prevented by a shortage of human subjects for the clinical trials needed to show that the drugs are safe and effective. Since the lives and health of people in future generations may depend on treatments that are currently experimental, practicing physicians are morally in the wrong when, in the absence of any treatment proven to be effective, they fail to encourage suitable patients to volunteer for clinical trials.

Which of the following, if true, casts most doubt on the conclusion of the argument?

Pre thinking
The author reasoning links the fact that lives/health of future generations depend on current experimental treatments with ethic, moral.
Basically the doctors are morally wrong when not gathering patients for treatments since this could affect badly future generations.
What's worth here is to reason on the meaning of morally wrong/right. We can infer that clinical trials involve risks such as diseases, death.....
So Is sacrificing fewer lives now, in order to test a treatment, worth if this leads to save more life afterwards?


The argument does not state this clearly so if an answer choice suggests that this behavior is not morally right then we hav our weakener.


(A) Many drugs undergoing clinical trials are intended for the treatment of conditions for which there is currently no effective treatment.
So it makes sense to get more patients for clinical trials. This in someway strengthens the conclusion. Hence incorrect

(B) Patients do not share the physician’s professional concern for public health, but everyone has a moral obligation to alleviate suffering when able to do so.
Moral obligations of other people are not concerned here. Hence incorrect


(C) Usually, half the patients in a clinical trial serve as a control group and receive a nonactive drug in place of the drug being tested.
This suggests that some patients are not at risk during clinical trials. Since this does not affect the argument clearly it is incorrect

(D) An experimental drug cannot legally be made available to patients unless those patients are subjects in clinical trials of the drug.
This would suggest that ill people might volunteer or be used in clinical trials but again this choice does not impact physicians' morality. Henc incorrect

(E) Physicians have an overriding moral and legal duty to care for the health and safety of their current patients.
This choice suggests that what is morally right for doctors is to care for their current patients. Hence they are not morally wrong if they don't encourage people to volunteer in risky clinical trials. Hence correct

It's a good day to be alive, cheers!
Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 09 Jun 2019
Posts: 105
GMAT 1: 570 Q42 V29
Reviews Badge
CR OG 2018 Question no 629  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 02 Oct 2019, 00:14
The introduction of new drugs into the market is frequently prevented by a shortage of human subjects for the clinical trials needed to show that the drugs are safe and effective. Since the lives and health of people in future generations may depend on treatments that are currently experimental, practicing physicians are morally in the wrong when, in the absence of any treatment proven to be effective, they fail to encourage suitable patients to volunteer for clinical trials.

Which of the following, if true, casts most doubt on the conclusion of the argument?

(A) Many drugs undergoing clinical trials ate intended for the treatment of conditions for which there is currently no effective treatment.

(B) Patients do not share the physician’s professional concern for public health, but everyone has a moral obligation to alleviate suffering when able to do so.

(C) Usually, half the patients in a clinical trial serve as a control group and receive a nonactive drug in place of the drug being tested.

(D) An experimental drug cannot legally be made available to patients unless those patients are subjects in clinical trials of the drug.

(E) Physicians have an overriding moral and legal duty to care for the health and safety of their current patients.

Hi team, :)

Could I get some insight on why would option D be wrong?

Thinking process: (fail to encourage suitable patients to volunteer for clinical trials)X ----->(practicing physicians are morally in the wrong) Y


(E) Physicians have an overriding moral and legal duty to care for the health and safety of their current patients. Yes, undermines our summary no doubt but my problem is with eliminating option D.

(D) An experimental drug cannot legally be made available to patients unless those patients are subjects in clinical trials of the drug. Why is this wrong?
As per the OG explanation this option supports rather than undermine the argument's conclusion. I don't see how?
If this were to be true then isn't it saying. It was not (fail to encourage suitable patients to volunteer for clinical trials)X that caused (practicing physicians are morally in the wrong) Y but Z (An experimental drug cannot legally be made available to patients).


If this is a trap answer then could someone break this down for me please?

Thank You,
Dablu
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
S
Joined: 28 Jan 2017
Posts: 420
The introduction of new drugs into the market is frequently prevented  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 Oct 2019, 00:31
1
Dear AjiteshArun VeritasKarishma,

To arrive at choice E., do I have to assume that the risks from clinical trials outweigh the potential HEALTH benefits?

The participation in the trial could benefit current patients as well. Hence, all the more reasons to encourage current patients to participate. Thus, choice E. could also strengthen the argument!

Thank you in advance!
_________________
Thank you in advance! :please :please :please
CEO
CEO
User avatar
V
Joined: 15 Jul 2015
Posts: 3366
Location: India
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Re: The introduction of new drugs into the market is frequently prevented  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 Oct 2019, 19:14
1
varotkorn wrote:
Dear AjiteshArun VeritasKarishma,

To arrive at choice E., do I have to assume that the risks from clinical trials outweigh the potential HEALTH benefits?

The participation in the trial could benefit current patients as well. Hence, all the more reasons to encourage current patients to participate. Thus, choice E. could also strengthen the argument!

Thank you in advance!
Hi varotkorn,

First, we should look at a basic assumption that you might have made here: when you look at this argument, do you get the impression that physicians never encourage "current" patients to volunteer for clinical trials?

Look at the conclusion again:
practicing physicians are morally in the wrong when, in the absence of any treatment proven to be effective, they fail to encourage suitable patients to volunteer for clinical trials

This statement does not say that physicians never encourage "current" patients to volunteer for clinical trials. Instead, the impression that we get is that whenever, and this could mean in 10% of all cases or in 90% of all cases, a physician fails to encourage a patient to volunteer for clinical trials, he or she is morally in the wrong. Here is a slightly more direct, but less precise way of looking at this: if , "in the absence of any treatment proven to be effective", physicians encourage x% of all patients who cannot be helped by any currently available medicine to sign up for clinical trials, the argument wants that x% to go to 100%.

The correct option points out that physicians have "an overriding moral and legal duty to care for the health and safety of their current patients". This weakens the conclusion that it is always morally incorrect for physicians to not encourage current patients to volunteer for clinical trials.
_________________
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
User avatar
V
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 10791
Location: Pune, India
Re: The introduction of new drugs into the market is frequently prevented  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 Oct 2019, 20:28
1
sairam595 wrote:
GMAT® Official Guide 2017

Practice Question
Question No.: CR 629
Page: 534

The introduction of new drugs into the market is frequently prevented by a shortage of human subjects for the clinical trials needed to show that the drugs are safe and effective. Since the lives and health of people in future generations may depend on treatments that are currently experimental, practicing physicians are morally in the wrong when, in the absence of any treatment proven to be effective, they fail to encourage suitable patients to volunteer for clinical trials.

Which of the following, if true, casts most doubt on the conclusion of the argument?

(A) Many drugs undergoing clinical trials are intended for the treatment of conditions for which there is currently no effective treatment.

(B) Patients do not share the physician’s professional concern for public health, but everyone has a moral obligation to alleviate suffering when able to do so.

(C) Usually, half the patients in a clinical trial serve as a control group and receive a nonactive drug in place of the drug being tested.

(D) An experimental drug cannot legally be made available to patients unless those patients are subjects in clinical trials of the drug.

(E) Physicians have an overriding moral and legal duty to care for the health and safety of their current patients.

Clinical Trials

Step 1: Identify the Question

The wording casts doubt on in the question stem indicates that this is a Weaken the Argument question.

Step 2: Deconstruct the Argument

Too few human subjs for clinical trials → new drugs can’t go to market

New drugs needed for future gens.

© Drs don’t encourage trial subjs (if no other treatment) → morally wrong

Step 3: Pause and State the Goal

In a Weaken problem, the right answer will make the conclusion less likely to be true. In this argument, the conclusion is that doctors are morally in the wrong if they do not encourage suitable patients to volunteer for clinical trials. This conclusion can be rephrased to state that doctors have a moral obligation to encourage patients to volunteer for trials. The right answer will suggest that this is not the case—that doctors are not morally obligated to encourage patients to volunteer. The right answer will most likely accomplish this by showing that there are negative consequences to encouraging patients to volunteer, and that these might outweigh the moral imperative.

Step 4: Work from Wrong to Right

(A) According to the conclusion, physicians are only morally required to recommend trial participation if there is no other effective treatment. This answer choice suggests that this will be the case for many patients. However, knowing that a doctor might be able to recommend trial participation to many patients doesn’t clarify whether that doctor is morally obligated to do so.

(B) The answer choice states that everyone is morally obligated to alleviate suffering. This actually strengthens the conclusion, since if everyone is obligated to alleviate suffering, doctors should be no exception.

(C) This is a tempting answer choice because it relates to real-world concerns surrounding clinical trials. If a patient receives the control drug, he or she might not receive any benefit from participating in the trial. However, the argument specifically claims that physicians should recommend trial participation because of the benefit to future generations, not because of potential benefit to the trial patients themselves. Even though personal benefit is a concern to the patients, since the argument only deals with benefit for others, information about personal benefit does not affect the conclusion.

(D) This answer choice suggests that enrolling patients in a clinical trial is sometimes the only way for those patients to acquire necessary medication. However, the argument specifically claims that physicians should recommend trial participation because of the benefit to future generations, not because of potential benefit to the trial patients themselves. Even though personal benefit is a concern to the patients, since the argument only deals with benefit for others, information about personal benefit does not affect the conclusion. Even if the conclusion dealt with personal benefit, this answer choice would strengthen it, rather than weakening it, because it would suggest that doctors should encourage their sick patients to enroll in trials.

(E) CORRECT. The argument states that the purpose of clinical trials is to show that the drugs are safe and effective. Thus, if a drug is being tested in a clinical trial, it is not definitively known whether it is safe and/or effective. Taking these drugs, therefore, involves accepting at least some risk to health or safety.

The answer choice states that physicians have an overriding responsibility to care for the health and safety of their current patients. That is, the health and safety of their current patients takes precedence over moral imperatives that only relate to future generations. It follows that a doctor should not necessarily encourage a current patient to participate in a clinical trial solely for the benefit of future patients, since participation might cause some risk to the current patient, and that is more important than the health of future patients.

Argument Evaluation

Situation A shortage of human subjects for clinical trials needed to show that new drugs are safe and effective often prevents those drugs from being introduced into the market. The lives and health of future generations may depend on treatments that are now experimental.

Reasoning What would cast doubt on the judgment that doctors are morally obligated to encourage their patients to volunteer for clinical trials? Note that the argument's conclusion, unlike its premises, is a moral judgment. This judgment could be cast into doubt by a moral principle that would be likely to conflict with it under the conditions described. For example, a principle suggesting that it is sometimes morally unacceptable for doctors to encourage their patients to volunteer for clinical trials would also suggest that they are not morally obligated to encourage their patients to volunteer for clinical trials, since anything morally obligatory must also be morally acceptable.

(A) If anything, this highlights how important it is to ensure that these drugs undergo clinical trials to benefit future generations, so it supports rather than casts doubt on the argument's conclusion.

(B) This suggests that patients are morally obligated to volunteer for clinical trials to help prevent suffering in future generations. If anything, this supports the claim that doctors are morally obligated to encourage their patients to volunteer.

(C) The clinical trial will probably not harm any patients in the control group, yet their participation will benefit future generations. So, if anything, this supports the claim that doctors should encourage their patients to volunteer.

(D) This legal barrier makes it even more essential for the drugs to undergo clinical trials in order to benefit patients, so it supports rather than casts doubt on the argument's conclusion.

(E) Correct. Since the experimental drugs' safety is being tested during the trials, the drugs may prove unsafe for subjects in the trials. If doctors have an overriding moral duty to keep their current patients safe, then it may be morally unacceptable for them to encourage those patients to volunteer for the trials.


The introduction of new drugs into the market is frequently prevented by a shortage of human subjects for the clinical trials needed to show that the drugs are safe and effective.
Lives and health of people in future generations may depend on these new drugs

Conclusion: Practicing physicians are morally in the wrong when, in the absence of any treatment proven to be effective, they fail to encourage suitable patients to volunteer for clinical trials.

The argument says that new drugs do not find enough human subjects for effectiveness and safety tests. This puts future generations at risk. So doctors should encourage suitable patients to volunteer for clinical trials. Here is the problem - these new drugs need to be tested for safety. When doctors encourage their patients to volunteer for trials, they are putting their patients at risk. For new drugs, it is not known whether their benefits outweigh risks or risks outweigh benefits. Since their safety has not been established, the patients are at risk. The point is - would you risk current generation for the benefit of future generation?

Let's look at the options to find which one weakens the argument.

(A) Many drugs undergoing clinical trials are intended for the treatment of conditions for which there is currently no effective treatment.

If anything, this helps our argument. These new drugs are needed since currently there is no effective treatment for these conditions.

(B) Patients do not share the physician’s professional concern for public health, but everyone has a moral obligation to alleviate suffering when able to do so.

Again, this preaches to the current patients to undergo new drug trials.

(C) Usually, half the patients in a clinical trial serve as a control group and receive a nonactive drug in place of the drug being tested.

Irrelevant how the actual trials take place. Half the patients are still put at risk.

(D) An experimental drug cannot legally be made available to patients unless those patients are subjects in clinical trials of the drug.

If anything, it helps our argument that patients should undergo clinical trials if they want the new drugs. They cannot obtain the new drugs without undergoing clinical trials.

(E) Physicians have an overriding moral and legal duty to care for the health and safety of their current patients.

Correct. This weakens our argument that physicians should encourage their patients to undergo drug trials. Physicians have a duty to care for current patients so they cannot put their current patients health at risk but encouraging them to try untested drugs.

Answer (E)
_________________
Karishma
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor

Learn more about how Veritas Prep can help you achieve a great GMAT score by checking out their GMAT Prep Options >
CrackVerbal Representative
User avatar
G
Affiliations: CrackVerbal
Joined: 03 Oct 2013
Posts: 2021
Location: India
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
Re: CR OG 2018 Question no 629  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Nov 2019, 22:10
Hi Dablu,

Are you clear on why E is the best option here?

When physicians are ethically/morally responsible to care for their patients, they are morally required not to encourage patients to participate in clinical trials that are unsafe. Due to this reasoning, Option E casts doubt on the conclusion that physicians are morally in the wrong when…

When you examine Option D, you realise that it’s simply stating the legality of clinical trials. It does not cast doubt on the conclusion that involves ‘physicians’.
Correct?

Option D might point to why there is a shortage of human subjects. But it does not provide sufficient explanation (or doubt in this case) as to why the physicians might be in a moral double bind.

Hope this helps!
_________________
Math Expert
User avatar
V
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Posts: 65829
Re: The introduction of new drugs into the market is frequently prevented  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 10 May 2020, 13:28
gurudabl wrote:
The introduction of new drugs into the market is frequently prevented by a shortage of human subjects for the clinical trials needed to show that the drugs are safe and effective. Since the lives and health of people in future generations may depend on treatments that are currently experimental, practicing physicians are morally in the wrong when, in the absence of any treatment proven to be effective, they fail to encourage suitable patients to volunteer for clinical trials.

Which of the following, if true, casts most doubt on the conclusion of the argument?

(A) Many drugs undergoing clinical trials ate intended for the treatment of conditions for which there is currently no effective treatment.

(B) Patients do not share the physician’s professional concern for public health, but everyone has a moral obligation to alleviate suffering when able to do so.

(C) Usually, half the patients in a clinical trial serve as a control group and receive a nonactive drug in place of the drug being tested.

(D) An experimental drug cannot legally be made available to patients unless those patients are subjects in clinical trials of the drug.

(E) Physicians have an overriding moral and legal duty to care for the health and safety of their current patients.

Hi team, :)

Could I get some insight on why would option D be wrong?

Thinking process: (fail to encourage suitable patients to volunteer for clinical trials)X ----->(practicing physicians are morally in the wrong) Y


(E) Physicians have an overriding moral and legal duty to care for the health and safety of their current patients. Yes, undermines our summary no doubt but my problem is with eliminating option D.

(D) An experimental drug cannot legally be made available to patients unless those patients are subjects in clinical trials of the drug. Why is this wrong?
As per the OG explanation this option supports rather than undermine the argument's conclusion. I don't see how?
If this were to be true then isn't it saying. It was not (fail to encourage suitable patients to volunteer for clinical trials)X that caused (practicing physicians are morally in the wrong) Y but Z (An experimental drug cannot legally be made available to patients).


If this is a trap answer then could someone break this down for me please?

Thank You,
Dablu


Merging topics. Please search before posting. Thank you.
_________________
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 08 Nov 2019
Posts: 9
CAT Tests
Re: The introduction of new drugs into the market is frequently prevented  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 May 2020, 11:11
I always feel CR is all about understanding hidden reasoning !!! all strenther weakner question will have a lot of option who will make conclusion stronh or weak but that you will feel only when you just read conclusion and answer choices.. but if read argument there will only be one specific context that will be set.. we need to find answer in that context ...

in this question

Doctors are morally wrong for not encouraging patient for medical trail
because these medical trail will create medicinge that will save life and health of future ppl..

so here author assuming as if if doctors encourage paitient there wont be any side effect...to them.. and they can get medcine .. what if patients die because of trial.. doctors are are equally morally obligated to current patient as future paitient..

so any answer that say patients can die medicince can have fatal side effect.. will weakner... while medcine succes rate without fatality some eveidence info that made experiment without any life in danger will strengther...


sorry for spelling issue here n there
Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 02 Dec 2018
Posts: 62
CAT Tests
Re: The introduction of new drugs into the market is frequently prevented  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 10 Jun 2020, 10:58
GMATNinja wrote:
charlotte345 wrote:
Hi Experts - For this question (https://gmatclub.com/forum/the-introduc ... 20355.html), my pre-thinking was that there must be a shortage of patients who can or are encouraged to volunteer. So when I looked at option C - I assumed that the situation is that although there are patients who are volunteering but half of them have been receiving a nonactive drug - which defeats the purpose of having them on trial to test a drug - and thus went with this option. Can you please explain where am I going wrong in my thinking. Thanks a lot in advance!

Quote:
C) Usually, half the patients in a clinical trial serve as a control group and receive a nonactive drug in place of the drug being tested.

Having patients serve as a control by receiving a nonactive drug does not "defeat the purpose of having them on trial to test a drug." Rather, having patients serve as a control could simply be a normal part of clinical trials. In order for (C) to work, you would have to ASSUME that having half the patients serve as a control group is inefficient or detrimental for some reason. There is nothing in the passage suggesting that this is the case, so (C) must be eliminated.

We are specifically told that "the introduction of new drugs into the market is frequently prevented by a shortage of human subjects for the clinical trials needed to show that the drugs are safe and effective." The author's argument is:

  • More patients are needed.
  • The lives and health of people in future generations may depend on treatments that are currently experimental.
  • Therefore, "practicing physicians are morally in the wrong when, in the absence of any treatment proven to be effective, they fail to encourage suitable patients to volunteer for clinical trials."

But if we are still testing a drug to see if it is safe and effective, then we clearly do not know whether that drug is currently safe. So any patient participating in the trials runs the risk of taking drugs that are not safe. If a physician encourages a patient to participate in the trial, then the physician is encouraging the patient to do something that might be unsafe.

If "physicians have an overriding moral and legal duty to care for the health and safety of their current patients," then they should not encourage their patients to do something that might be unsafe. Thus, (E) is the best answer.


Hi GMATNInja,

The passage states "in the absence of effective treatment". Then even if he does not encourage his patients for trails, the correct medicines are also not safe or at least ineffective, per the passage. Then how can option E be correct by starting the not encouraging patients the doctors are suggesting safer methods to patients?
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
User avatar
V
Status: GMAT and GRE tutors
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 3646
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170

GRE 2: Q170 V170
Re: The introduction of new drugs into the market is frequently prevented  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 Jun 2020, 17:55
1
shanks2020 wrote:

Hi GMATNInja,

The passage states "in the absence of effective treatment". Then even if he does not encourage his patients for trails, the correct medicines are also not safe or at least ineffective, per the passage. Then how can option E be correct by starting the not encouraging patients the doctors are suggesting safer methods to patients?

Let's say that the patient has warts on his foot. This is not a pleasant experience, but is usually not a very dangerous condition.

Maybe there are no treatments that have been "proven to be effective" against these kinds of warts. Does the doctor have a moral obligation to encourage this patient to volunteer for a clinical trial, in order to improve the lives of future generations?

If the doctor's "overriding moral and legal duty" is to care for the current patient, then perhaps not. Maybe the patient isn't that bothered by the foot warts, and doesn't want to risk any potentially dangerous side effects that could be WORSE than "ineffective."

The same could be true in other situations. Maybe a patient has an aggressive terminal illness with no effective treatment. Sure, there's a chance that an experimental treatment would help future generations, or would maybe even help the current patient. But there's also the chance that the experimental treatment does harm to the current patient and robs him of his remaining time with his family.

Because these new treatments are experimental, we can't infer that they are "safer" than the current ineffective treatments. (E) is the correct answer.

I hope that helps!
_________________
GMAT/GRE tutors @ www.gmatninja.com (we're hiring!) | GMAT Club Verbal Expert | YouTube | Blog | Bad at PMs

Beginners' guides to GMAT verbal: RC | CR | SC

YouTube LIVE verbal webinars: all videos by topic

SC articles & resources: How to go from great (760) to incredible (780) on GMAT SC | That "-ing" Word Probably Isn't a Verb | That "-ed" Word Might Not Be a Verb, Either | No-BS Guide to GMAT Idioms | "Being" is not the enemy | WTF is "that" doing in my sentence?

RC, CR, and other articles & resources: All GMAT Ninja articles on GMAT Club | Using LSAT for GMAT CR & RC |7 reasons why your actual GMAT scores don't match your practice test scores | How to get 4 additional "fake" GMAT Prep tests for $29.99 | Time management on verbal

SC & CR Questions of the Day (QOTDs), featuring expert explanations: All QOTDs | Subscribe via email | RSS

Need an expert reply? Hit the request verbal experts' reply button; be specific about your question, and tag @GMATNinja. Priority is always given to official GMAT questions.
Stanford School Moderator
avatar
B
Joined: 11 Jun 2019
Posts: 150
Location: India
Reviews Badge CAT Tests
Re: The introduction of new drugs into the market is frequently prevented  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 02 Jul 2020, 07:11
Can someone please explain the logic behind D being incorrect?
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
G
Joined: 14 Aug 2019
Posts: 324
Location: India
Concentration: Marketing, Finance
Re: The introduction of new drugs into the market is frequently prevented  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 02 Jul 2020, 08:29
davidbeckham wrote:
Can someone please explain the logic behind D being incorrect?



Conclusion: they fail to encourage suitable patients to volunteer for clinical trials. ( Remember this statement)

option (D) : An experimental drug cannot legally be made available to patients unless those patients are subjects in clinical trials of the drug.

Let's say , Drug can be made legally available to patients.
Does this mean patient take this drug? -NO
Does this mean physician encourage or discourage ? - No

See the conclusion again: Ask question: Drug are available or not available, does it have any effect on physicians encourage or not these suitable ( to whom drugs can be made legally available ) patients?- No , right?

In other words, i need to find some statement that make the conclusion weaken in such a way that physicians will fail to encourage suitable patients whether patients are 5 or 500( the number doesn't have any effect )

I hope it helps!
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
User avatar
V
Status: GMAT and GRE tutors
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 3646
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170

GRE 2: Q170 V170
Re: The introduction of new drugs into the market is frequently prevented  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 Jul 2020, 05:27
1
davidbeckham wrote:
Can someone please explain the logic behind D being incorrect?

Here's a breakdown of the passage, which is borrowed from our previous post:

We are specifically told that "the introduction of new drugs into the market is frequently prevented by a shortage of human subjects for the clinical trials needed to show that the drugs are safe and effective." The author's argument is:

  • More patients are needed.
  • The lives and health of people in future generations may depend on treatments that are currently experimental.
  • Therefore, "practicing physicians are morally in the wrong when, in the absence of any treatment proven to be effective, they fail to encourage suitable patients to volunteer for clinical trials."

We're asked which of the answer choices casts most doubt on the conclusion of the argument -- that's the bit quoted above.

(D) tells us:
Quote:
(D) An experimental drug cannot legally be made available to patients unless those patients are subjects in clinical trials of the drug.

This doesn't add much new information to what we can see in the passage -- the passage implies that experimental drugs are unavailable to patients outside clinical trials and (D) gives us the reason for that. It's illegal for these drugs to be made available unless the patient is in a clinical trial.

This doesn't undermine the argument that:

    "practicing physicians are morally in the wrong when, in the absence of any treatment proven to be effective, they fail to encourage suitable patients to volunteer for clinical trials."

(D) confirms the reason why experimental drugs are unavailable to patients outside clinical trials. It does not cast doubt on the morality of encouraging patients to volunteer for clinical trials. This is why (D) is not the right answer.

The post linked above also has an explanation of why (E) is the right answer if you want to take a look at that.

I hope that helps!
_________________
GMAT/GRE tutors @ www.gmatninja.com (we're hiring!) | GMAT Club Verbal Expert | YouTube | Blog | Bad at PMs

Beginners' guides to GMAT verbal: RC | CR | SC

YouTube LIVE verbal webinars: all videos by topic

SC articles & resources: How to go from great (760) to incredible (780) on GMAT SC | That "-ing" Word Probably Isn't a Verb | That "-ed" Word Might Not Be a Verb, Either | No-BS Guide to GMAT Idioms | "Being" is not the enemy | WTF is "that" doing in my sentence?

RC, CR, and other articles & resources: All GMAT Ninja articles on GMAT Club | Using LSAT for GMAT CR & RC |7 reasons why your actual GMAT scores don't match your practice test scores | How to get 4 additional "fake" GMAT Prep tests for $29.99 | Time management on verbal

SC & CR Questions of the Day (QOTDs), featuring expert explanations: All QOTDs | Subscribe via email | RSS

Need an expert reply? Hit the request verbal experts' reply button; be specific about your question, and tag @GMATNinja. Priority is always given to official GMAT questions.
Stanford School Moderator
avatar
B
Joined: 11 Jun 2019
Posts: 150
Location: India
Reviews Badge CAT Tests
The introduction of new drugs into the market is frequently prevented  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 Jul 2020, 06:21
Thanks, GMATNinja for the explanation. I am sorry but I am still a bit lost. The conclusion is that practicing physicians are morally in the wrong when, in the absence of any treatment proven to be effective, they fail to encourage suitable patients to volunteer for clinical trials and we have to undermine this conclusion. Option D says that these drugs cannot legally be made available to patients. I am confused as to why practicing physicians will be morally wrong to not do something which legally cannot be done?

GMATNinja wrote:
davidbeckham wrote:
Can someone please explain the logic behind D being incorrect?

Here's a breakdown of the passage, which is borrowed from our previous post:

We are specifically told that "the introduction of new drugs into the market is frequently prevented by a shortage of human subjects for the clinical trials needed to show that the drugs are safe and effective." The author's argument is:

  • More patients are needed.
  • The lives and health of people in future generations may depend on treatments that are currently experimental.
  • Therefore, "practicing physicians are morally in the wrong when, in the absence of any treatment proven to be effective, they fail to encourage suitable patients to volunteer for clinical trials."

We're asked which of the answer choices casts most doubt on the conclusion of the argument -- that's the bit quoted above.

(D) tells us:
Quote:
(D) An experimental drug cannot legally be made available to patients unless those patients are subjects in clinical trials of the drug.

This doesn't add much new information to what we can see in the passage -- the passage implies that experimental drugs are unavailable to patients outside clinical trials and (D) gives us the reason for that. It's illegal for these drugs to be made available unless the patient is in a clinical trial.

This doesn't undermine the argument that:

    "practicing physicians are morally in the wrong when, in the absence of any treatment proven to be effective, they fail to encourage suitable patients to volunteer for clinical trials."

(D) confirms the reason why experimental drugs are unavailable to patients outside clinical trials. It does not cast doubt on the morality of encouraging patients to volunteer for clinical trials. This is why (D) is not the right answer.

The post linked above also has an explanation of why (E) is the right answer if you want to take a look at that.

I hope that helps!
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
User avatar
V
Status: GMAT and GRE tutors
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 3646
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170

GRE 2: Q170 V170
Re: The introduction of new drugs into the market is frequently prevented  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 01 Aug 2020, 10:59
1
davidbeckham wrote:
Thanks, GMATNinja for the explanation. I am sorry but I am still a bit lost. The conclusion is that practicing physicians are morally in the wrong when, in the absence of any treatment proven to be effective, they fail to encourage suitable patients to volunteer for clinical trials and we have to undermine this conclusion. Option D says that these drugs cannot legally be made available to patients. I am confused as to why practicing physicians will be morally wrong to not do something which legally cannot be done?

GMATNinja wrote:
davidbeckham wrote:
Can someone please explain the logic behind D being incorrect?

Here's a breakdown of the passage, which is borrowed from our previous post:

We are specifically told that "the introduction of new drugs into the market is frequently prevented by a shortage of human subjects for the clinical trials needed to show that the drugs are safe and effective." The author's argument is:

  • More patients are needed.
  • The lives and health of people in future generations may depend on treatments that are currently experimental.
  • Therefore, "practicing physicians are morally in the wrong when, in the absence of any treatment proven to be effective, they fail to encourage suitable patients to volunteer for clinical trials."

We're asked which of the answer choices casts most doubt on the conclusion of the argument -- that's the bit quoted above.

(D) tells us:
Quote:
(D) An experimental drug cannot legally be made available to patients unless those patients are subjects in clinical trials of the drug.

This doesn't add much new information to what we can see in the passage -- the passage implies that experimental drugs are unavailable to patients outside clinical trials and (D) gives us the reason for that. It's illegal for these drugs to be made available unless the patient is in a clinical trial.

This doesn't undermine the argument that:

    "practicing physicians are morally in the wrong when, in the absence of any treatment proven to be effective, they fail to encourage suitable patients to volunteer for clinical trials."

(D) confirms the reason why experimental drugs are unavailable to patients outside clinical trials. It does not cast doubt on the morality of encouraging patients to volunteer for clinical trials. This is why (D) is not the right answer.

The post linked above also has an explanation of why (E) is the right answer if you want to take a look at that.

I hope that helps!

To try and help your confusion, let's be very clear about what (D) says:
Quote:
(D) An experimental drug cannot legally be made available to patients unless those patients are subjects in clinical trials of the drug.

This does not say the drugs cannot legally be made available to patients. It says the patients need to be subjects in clinical trials before it is legal to give them these drugs.

If we compare this to the part of the passage quoted:

    "practicing physicians are morally in the wrong when, in the absence of any treatment proven to be effective, they fail to encourage suitable patients to volunteer for clinical trials."

Here, we're not told about the physicians giving the drugs to the patients -- we're told physicians are morally in the wrong if they do not "encourage suitable patients to volunteer for clinical trials."

So, if a patient volunteers for a clinical trial, then they can be given the drug legally. The physicians will not be doing something illegal and, therefore, there is no conflict between the legality and morality of their actions.

However, as explained in this post, (D) does not cast doubt on the morality of encouraging patients to volunteer for clinical trials, so (D) cannot be the correct answer to this question.

This post discusses the reasons why (E) is the best answer.

I hope that helps!
_________________
GMAT/GRE tutors @ www.gmatninja.com (we're hiring!) | GMAT Club Verbal Expert | YouTube | Blog | Bad at PMs

Beginners' guides to GMAT verbal: RC | CR | SC

YouTube LIVE verbal webinars: all videos by topic

SC articles & resources: How to go from great (760) to incredible (780) on GMAT SC | That "-ing" Word Probably Isn't a Verb | That "-ed" Word Might Not Be a Verb, Either | No-BS Guide to GMAT Idioms | "Being" is not the enemy | WTF is "that" doing in my sentence?

RC, CR, and other articles & resources: All GMAT Ninja articles on GMAT Club | Using LSAT for GMAT CR & RC |7 reasons why your actual GMAT scores don't match your practice test scores | How to get 4 additional "fake" GMAT Prep tests for $29.99 | Time management on verbal

SC & CR Questions of the Day (QOTDs), featuring expert explanations: All QOTDs | Subscribe via email | RSS

Need an expert reply? Hit the request verbal experts' reply button; be specific about your question, and tag @GMATNinja. Priority is always given to official GMAT questions.
GMAT Club Bot
Re: The introduction of new drugs into the market is frequently prevented   [#permalink] 01 Aug 2020, 10:59

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 37 posts ] 

The introduction of new drugs into the market is frequently prevented

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  





Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne