The proposal to extend clinical trials, which are routinely : GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR)
Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases https://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 22 Feb 2017, 11:14

### 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

# The proposal to extend clinical trials, which are routinely

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Director
Joined: 08 Jul 2004
Posts: 598
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 220 [0], given: 0

The proposal to extend clinical trials, which are routinely [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Mar 2005, 09:20
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

The proposal to extend clinical trials, which are routinely used as systematic tests of pharmaceutical innovations, to new surgical procedures should not be implemented. The point is that surgical procedures differ in one important respect from medicinal drugs: a correctly prescribed drug depends for its effectiveness only on the drugâ€™s composition, whereas the effectiveness of even the most appropriate surgical procedure is transparently related to the skills of the surgeon who uses it.
The reasoning in the argument is flawed because the argument
(A) does not consider that new surgical procedures might be found to be intrinsically more harmful than the best treatment previously available
(B) ignores the possibility that the challenged proposal is deliberately crude in a way designed to elicit criticism to be used in refining the proposal
(C) assumes that a surgeonâ€™s skills remain unchanged throughout the surgeonâ€™s professional life
(D) describes a dissimilarity without citing any scientific evidence for the existence of that dissimilarity
(E) rejects a proposal presumably advanced in good faith without acknowledging any such good faith
_________________

Regards, S

If you have any questions
New!
VP
Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 1440
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 39 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

01 Mar 2005, 10:29
"C"....if surgeon's expertise degrade then there is no way to tell whether adding surgeon into the picture will help in the trials.
SVP
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 2243
Followers: 16

Kudos [?]: 328 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

01 Mar 2005, 11:22
Fact: Clinical trials are routinely used to test new medicines.
Proposal: To extend clinical trials to surgical procedures.
Argument: The proposal is bad, because while the effectiveness of medicines depends only on its composition, the effectiveness of surgical procedures also depends on the skills of the surgeon.

(A) does not consider that new surgical procedures might be found to be intrinsically more harmful than the best treatment previously available
Correct. Even if the effectiveness of surgical procedures depends on the skills of the surgeon, it does not rule out that it also depends on other factors that are more intrinsic to the procedure itself, which can be tested through clinical trials.

(B) ignores the possibility that the challenged proposal is deliberately crude in a way designed to elicit criticism to be used in refining the proposal
It's not a question whether the proposal is crude or incompleted.

(C) assumes that a surgeonâ€™s skills remain unchanged throughout the surgeonâ€™s professional life
Out of scope. We need to find out why clinical trials can still be used to test the effectiveness of a surgical procedure. No matter if a surgeon's skills changes overtime, different surgoens still have different skills and the clinical trials can still get various results, depending on the skill levels, and wouldn't be useful in testing the effectiveness of a surgical procedure.

(D) describes a dissimilarity without citing any scientific evidence for the existence of that dissimilarity
The dissimilarity is not one that really needs any scientific evidence to support.

(E) rejects a proposal presumably advanced in good faith without acknowledging any such good faith

(A) for me.
Manager
Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 95
Location: Irvine, CA
Followers: 1

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

### Show Tags

01 Mar 2005, 12:03
I will go with D:

As I think A sais:

"does not consider that new surgical procedures might be found to be intrinsically more harmful than the best treatment previously available"

why would we look for that?

I think it is D, because it is saying that medicines are better because it depends on the drugs and surgical procedures are bad because they depend on the skills of the surgen.
so it describes a dissimilarity without giving any evidence of that dissimilarity.

I am open to proposals.....
_________________

discipline is what I need.

Director
Joined: 04 Jul 2004
Posts: 904
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 52 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

01 Mar 2005, 17:25
HongHu wrote:
Fact: Clinical trials are routinely used to test new medicines.
Proposal: To extend clinical trials to surgical procedures.
Argument: The proposal is bad, because while the effectiveness of medicines depends only on its composition, the effectiveness of surgical procedures also depends on the skills of the surgeon.

(A) does not consider that new surgical procedures might be found to be intrinsically more harmful than the best treatment previously available
Correct. Even if the effectiveness of surgical procedures depends on the skills of the surgeon, it does not rule out that it also depends on other factors that are more intrinsic to the procedure itself, which can be tested through clinical trials.

(B) ignores the possibility that the challenged proposal is deliberately crude in a way designed to elicit criticism to be used in refining the proposal
It's not a question whether the proposal is crude or incompleted.

(C) assumes that a surgeonâ€™s skills remain unchanged throughout the surgeonâ€™s professional life
Out of scope. We need to find out why clinical trials can still be used to test the effectiveness of a surgical procedure. No matter if a surgeon's skills changes overtime, different surgoens still have different skills and the clinical trials can still get various results, depending on the skill levels, and wouldn't be useful in testing the effectiveness of a surgical procedure.

(D) describes a dissimilarity without citing any scientific evidence for the existence of that dissimilarity
The dissimilarity is not one that really needs any scientific evidence to support.

(E) rejects a proposal presumably advanced in good faith without acknowledging any such good faith

(A) for me.

HongHu, U r exceptional in handling CR questions..
I picked (C) but realized my mistake after going through ur post..
Director
Joined: 19 Nov 2004
Posts: 559
Location: SF Bay Area, USA
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 198 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

01 Mar 2005, 20:55
I am getting an A.
Nice explanation HongHu!
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 07 Jul 2004
Posts: 5062
Location: Singapore
Followers: 31

Kudos [?]: 367 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

01 Mar 2005, 22:52
(C) assumes that a surgeonâ€™s skills remain unchanged throughout the surgeonâ€™s professional life
- by assming the surgeon's skills remain unchanged, you are assuming that they never deteoriate as well. A new technique might make the precise skills of the surgeon less important, and so the proposal would be valid.

In (A), if there are some flaws with the new surgical procedures, wouldn't there be all the more reason to reject the proposal (since you'll be putting the patient's life at stake).
VP
Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 1218
Location: Taiwan
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 621 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

02 Mar 2005, 01:26
Hello, still cannot figure out.

Could anybody explain more?

SVP
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 2243
Followers: 16

Kudos [?]: 328 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

02 Mar 2005, 09:16
ywilfred wrote:
(C) assumes that a surgeonâ€™s skills remain unchanged throughout the surgeonâ€™s professional life
- by assming the surgeon's skills remain unchanged, you are assuming that they never deteoriate as well. A new technique might make the precise skills of the surgeon less important, and so the proposal would be valid.

You have to understand what clinical trial means. Medicine industry use this to test whether a drug is indeed effective. If the drug do not pass this test, then it doesn't get to be used. Same thing for a surgical process. The clinical trials would be used to see if it is not effective. The opposing opinion is that the trials cannot be reliable, because different surgeon's will have different level of skills and generate different result, which has nothing to do with the procedure itself. By claiming each one surgeon's skills remain unchanged does not solve this problem. This line of reasoning will not work unless all surgeons have the same level of skills.

Quote:
In (A), if there are some flaws with the new surgical procedures, wouldn't there be all the more reason to reject the proposal (since you'll be putting the patient's life at stake).

The proposal here refers to the idea of putting a procedure into clinical trials, not the surgical procedual itself. The purpose of clinical trials is exactly to prevent a flawed surgical procedure to be used without testing, to prevent patients' lifes being put in danger.
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 07 Jul 2004
Posts: 5062
Location: Singapore
Followers: 31

Kudos [?]: 367 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

02 Mar 2005, 09:20
Actually, in my knowledge, medical trials for new drugs are tested on real patients. So I was thinking whether a clinical trial for a new surgical procedure might be tested on real patients too.

But I do get your reasoning why A is correct and C isn't.
SVP
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 2243
Followers: 16

Kudos [?]: 328 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

02 Mar 2005, 09:40
You are correct. Clinical trials are the last stage of testing a drug. The drugs are supposed to be tested on animals first, as far as I know. So if a drug and/or a surgical procedure in this case reaches the clinical trial stage, it must mean it has passes many tests and would not post great danger to real human. However it could still be inherently non effective, even if it is not dangerous.
VP
Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 1218
Location: Taiwan
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 621 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

03 Mar 2005, 00:00
saurya_s wrote:
The proposal to extend clinical trials, which are routinely used as systematic tests of pharmaceutical innovations, to new surgical procedures should not be implemented. The point is that surgical procedures differ in one important respect from medicinal drugs: a correctly prescribed drug depends for its effectiveness only on the drugâ€™s composition, whereas the effectiveness of even the most appropriate surgical procedure is transparently related to the skills of the surgeon who uses it.
The reasoning in the argument is flawed because the argument
(A) does not consider that new surgical procedures might be found to be intrinsically more harmful than the best treatment previously available
(B) ignores the possibility that the challenged proposal is deliberately crude in a way designed to elicit criticism to be used in refining the proposal
(C) assumes that a surgeonâ€™s skills remain unchanged throughout the surgeonâ€™s professional life
(D) describes a dissimilarity without citing any scientific evidence for the existence of that dissimilarity
(E) rejects a proposal presumably advanced in good faith without acknowledging any such good faith

HounHu, I still cannot get it. Could you help me?
The conclusion: To refute the proposal which extends clinical trials to new surgical procedures.

But choice A said that new surgical procedures might be found to be intrinsically more harmful. It seems to support the conclusion which refutes the proposal. I didn't see any flaws there.

Manager
Joined: 05 Feb 2005
Posts: 116
Location: San Jose
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

03 Mar 2005, 00:26
Very neat explanation HongHu.
_________________

Anyone who has never made a mistake has never tried anything new. -Albert Einstein.

SVP
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 2243
Followers: 16

Kudos [?]: 328 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

03 Mar 2005, 14:28
chunjuwu wrote:
The conclusion: To refute the proposal which extends clinical trials to new surgical procedures.

But choice A said that new surgical procedures might be found to be intrinsically more harmful. It seems to support the conclusion which refutes the proposal. I didn't see any flaws there.

Again, the proposal says the surgical proceduares need to be put under test. The fact that the procedures might be found to be harmful supports the proposal that they need to be tested out.
Re: CR Surgeons   [#permalink] 03 Mar 2005, 14:28
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
A journalist discovered that drugs whose clinical trials are financed 2 26 Aug 2015, 08:52
In clinical trials of new medicines, half of the subjects receive the 0 11 Dec 2014, 19:19
33 Editorial: In a compelling preponderance of clinical trials, 29 01 Nov 2013, 12:23
The proposal to extend clinical trials, which are routinely 3 04 Jun 2010, 04:35
The proposal to extend clinical trials, which are routinely 15 06 Apr 2007, 01:58
Display posts from previous: Sort by

# The proposal to extend clinical trials, which are routinely

 Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group and phpBB SEO Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.