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 27 Feb 2017, 01:34

### 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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# The proposal to extend clinical trials, which are routinely

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

### Hide Tags

Director
Joined: 29 Jul 2006
Posts: 874
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 119 [0], given: 0

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

### Show Tags

06 Apr 2007, 01:58
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 1 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

Give explanations for ur choices
If you have any questions
you can ask an expert
New!
Senior Manager
Joined: 27 Jul 2006
Posts: 298
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 17 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

06 Apr 2007, 02:56
Here I see the problem in the argument as the difference between a skilled prescriber and a skilled surgeon.

What it is saying is that drugs cn be more systematically tested than sugical devices.

I would use D here as there is no case study to prove that this is true.

Also it assumes that one is always able to properly prescribe a drug, and not always able to perform proper surgury.
Senior Manager
Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 254
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 62 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

06 Apr 2007, 08:30
I would say C because the passage is trying to assume that the skills of the surgeon would be inconsistant. However, drugs can also be inconsistant too ( although the passage is trying to justify it). The passage doesn't have anything to prove that the skills of the surgeon would be inconsistant.
VP
Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Posts: 1473
Schools: Wharton (R2 - submitted); HBS (R2 - submitted); IIMA (admitted for 1 year PGPX)
Followers: 22

Kudos [?]: 180 [0], given: 13

Re: CR-clinical trials [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Apr 2007, 10:43
vineetgupta 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

Give explanations for ur choices

Phew!!!. This one is really tough. I would go with A because none of the other choices makes any sense to me.

The question is about why surgical procedures must not be clinically tried in much the same way as medicines are. The passage argues this must not be allowed and it cites as reason the fact that surgical procedures differ in that "they depend on the skill of the surgeon".

Fine, but what happens if the (new) surgical procedure itself (let's forget about the skill of the surgeon for a moment) - is intrinsically more harmful [I can't think of a practical example - but let's say one has kidney stones - and the choice is between using radiation to burn the stones out versus removing the stones surgically - the surgery would be intrinsically more harmful than using radiation] than the best treatment (non surgical) previously available.

Thus there is always the possiblitiy of finding out through clinical trials whether a new surgical procedure is appropriate in a given situation - just as with drugs.
Director
Joined: 29 Jul 2006
Posts: 874
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 119 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

06 Apr 2007, 11:18
Good going saurabh...its A indeed.
Manager
Joined: 07 Feb 2007
Posts: 212
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 13 [0], given: 0

Re: CR-clinical trials [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Apr 2007, 18:09
vineetgupta 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

Give explanations for ur choices

I am totally confused about this question.
What is the meaning of the first sentence--"The proposal to extend clinical trials to new surgical procedures should not be implemented"?
Does it mean "let us just use it, because blah, blah, blah...", or "let us do not use it until we find another way to test it"?
Manager
Joined: 20 Nov 2006
Posts: 213
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 0

Re: CR-clinical trials [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Apr 2007, 20:55
vineetgupta 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 - if the new surgical procedures are found to be more harmful then the argument is strengthened. - not correct.
(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 - Not correct
(C) assumes that a surgeonâ€™s skills remain unchanged throughout the surgeonâ€™s professional life - In no way it is related with the argument. We are comapring between clinical trials and sugical procedures and the argument is that surgical procedures are not to be allowed. - so irrelevant.(D) describes a dissimilarity without citing any scientific evidence for the existence of that dissimilarity - Seems to be correct - the evidence cited is not comparable. (E) rejects a proposal presumably advanced in good faith without acknowledging any such good faith - Not correct

Give explanations for ur choices
Senior Manager
Joined: 24 Sep 2006
Posts: 281
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 30 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

06 Apr 2007, 22:23
It is between A and C

A is definitely strong because it states that surgical procedures intrinsically are home harmful

A it is
_________________

AimHigher

Intern
Joined: 02 Apr 2007
Posts: 32
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

07 Apr 2007, 01:51
A is the answer.
Initially thought this q is something about btw drug and surgery, but no answer choices mentioning it. Yet best would be A since it talks a flaw in surgery itself. very good q.
Manager
Joined: 28 Feb 2007
Posts: 197
Location: California
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 0

Re: CR-clinical trials [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 Apr 2007, 02:06
dwivedys wrote:
vineetgupta 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

Give explanations for ur choices

Phew!!!. This one is really tough. I would go with A because none of the other choices makes any sense to me.

The question is about why surgical procedures must not be clinically tried in much the same way as medicines are. The passage argues this must not be allowed and it cites as reason the fact that surgical procedures differ in that "they depend on the skill of the surgeon".

Fine, but what happens if the (new) surgical procedure itself (let's forget about the skill of the surgeon for a moment) - is intrinsically more harmful [I can't think of a practical example - but let's say one has kidney stones - and the choice is between using radiation to burn the stones out versus removing the stones surgically - the surgery would be intrinsically more harmful than using radiation] than the best treatment (non surgical) previously available.

Thus there is always the possiblitiy of finding out through clinical trials whether a new surgical procedure is appropriate in a given situation - just as with drugs.

But then the same may hold for clinical trials of medicines too. None of the choices make complete sense.

I prefer D
Manager
Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 115
Followers: 1

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

### Show Tags

07 Apr 2007, 06:12
A.
Manager
Joined: 26 Aug 2006
Posts: 54
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 29

### Show Tags

07 Apr 2007, 18:30
Should be D.
Please post OA?
Manager
Joined: 23 Mar 2007
Posts: 176
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

19 Apr 2007, 11:26
I vote for A. Btw what is the OA?
Director
Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 847
GMAT 1: 740 Q48 V42
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 70 [0], given: 1

Re: CR-clinical trials [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Apr 2007, 07:20
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
- the arguement is about the not about the surgical procedures vs previous available treatments
(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
- irrelevant
(C) assumes that a surgeonâ€™s skills remain unchanged throughout the surgeonâ€™s professional life
- No such assumption is made
(D) describes a dissimilarity without citing any scientific evidence for the existence of that dissimilarity
-how does one know that the effectiveness of the drug is directly dependant on its composition alone. There is no evidence to this effect.
(E) rejects a proposal presumably advanced in good faith without acknowledging any such good faith
- irrelevant

I will go with D.

Anand
Director
Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 847
GMAT 1: 740 Q48 V42
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 70 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

20 Apr 2007, 07:27
AimHigher wrote:
It is between A and C

A is definitely strong because it states that surgical procedures intrinsically are home harmful

A it is

What if the previously available best treatment itself was a surgical procedure? There is nothing in the argument that suggests all surgical procedures are harmful ( even if compared to other drug treatments). The comparison is only about the new surgical procedures.

Anand
Director
Joined: 29 Jul 2006
Posts: 874
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 119 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

20 Apr 2007, 07:29
vineetgupta wrote:
Good going saurabh...its A indeed.

I already posted the OA guys...its A.
20 Apr 2007, 07:29
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
Proposals for extending the United States school year to 8 04 Feb 2008, 14:37
Display posts from previous: Sort by

# The proposal to extend clinical trials, which are routinely

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

 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®.