It is currently 16 Jan 2018, 11:46

### 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 traditional treatment of strep infections has been a

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Intern
Joined: 12 Aug 2008
Posts: 47

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

Location: New York, NY

### Show Tags

30 Aug 2008, 07:43
IMO 'B'

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

Current Student
Joined: 11 May 2008
Posts: 554

Kudos [?]: 238 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

30 Aug 2008, 08:29
if there is no cost advantage, why will anybody change?
i think E.
cos people will stop taking antibiotics after 3 days.
the conclusion is
Therefore, reinfection will
probably be less common in cases where the new antibiotic is prescribed than in cases
where either penicillin or erythromycin is prescribed.

so bcos people will stop taking after 3 days, reinfection will be less common amongst the group who take the latter and not pencillin

Kudos [?]: 238 [0], given: 0

VP
Joined: 17 Jun 2008
Posts: 1373

Kudos [?]: 453 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

30 Aug 2008, 09:44
arjtryarjtry wrote:
if there is no cost advantage, why will anybody change?
i think E.
cos people will stop taking antibiotics after 3 days.
the conclusion is
Therefore, reinfection will
probably be less common in cases where the new antibiotic is prescribed than in cases
where either penicillin or erythromycin is prescribed.

so bcos people will stop taking after 3 days, reinfection will be less common amongst the group who take the latter and not pencillin

Already in the argument its said that new drugs are three day treatment.Hence i felt this option is more of a repeatation ,why not B since it suggests another plus point of the drug
_________________

cheers
Its Now Or Never

Kudos [?]: 453 [0], given: 0

Intern
Joined: 07 Dec 2005
Posts: 16

Kudos [?]: 23 [1], given: 0

### Show Tags

30 Aug 2008, 09:55
1
KUDOS
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
IMO: E

Main issue is: People seem to stop taking the antibotics after 3 days. So a drug has to be effective in 3 days.

A. Some of the people who are allergic to penicillin are likely to be allergic to the
new antibiotic.
>> Out of scope. Eliminate.

B. A course of treatment with the new antibiotic costs about the same as a course of
treatment with either penicillin or erythromycin.
>> Irrelevant. Does not explain why people stop taking antibiotics after 3 days. Eliminate. (Note that if you were using the 2 of 5 rule, this would be one of the 2 remaining options)

C. The new antibiotic has been shown to be effective in eradicating bacterial
infections other than strep.
>> Out of scope. Eliminate.

D. Some physicians have already begun to prescribe the new antibiotic instead of
penicillin or erythromycin for the treatment of some strep infections.
>> Irrelevant. Eliminate.

E. Regardless of whether they take a traditional antibiotic or the new one, most
patients feel fully recovered after taking the drug for three days.
>> Correct choice.

Kudos [?]: 23 [1], given: 0

VP
Joined: 05 Jul 2008
Posts: 1401

Kudos [?]: 469 [1], given: 1

### Show Tags

30 Aug 2008, 09:59
1
KUDOS
spriya,

It possibly suggests another plus point of the drug. But the cost effectiveness of the solution is not what we are concerned with here.

We are concerned with reinfection as the conclusion says. Looking at E, if people take old and new drugs for the same period of time, the reinfection will be less for those who take the new drug

Kudos [?]: 469 [1], given: 1

VP
Joined: 17 Jun 2008
Posts: 1373

Kudos [?]: 453 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

30 Aug 2008, 10:10
icandy wrote:
spriya,

It possibly suggests another plus point of the drug. But the cost effectiveness of the solution is not what we are concerned with here.

We are concerned with reinfection as the conclusion says. Looking at E, if people take old and new drugs for the same period of time, the reinfection will be less for those who take the new drug

Yes I understand the above argument but my query is whether we can repeat the choices given in the argument,like argument already says new drugs is a 3 day treatment.Why to repeat the same ?
_________________

cheers
Its Now Or Never

Kudos [?]: 453 [0], given: 0

Intern
Joined: 07 Dec 2005
Posts: 16

Kudos [?]: 23 [1], given: 0

### Show Tags

30 Aug 2008, 10:21
1
KUDOS
spriya,

There is a subtle difference. The answer choice does not repeat the argument.

Argument says: New drug is effective after 3 days vs the old one which is effective after 7.

Answer choice says: People feel better after 3 days, irrespective of which drug they take. -- Possibly the reason why they stop taking the drug after 3 days (which statement, by the way, is in the argument).

I know, GMAT can drive you nuts on these kind of subtle differences.

Perhaps looking at it this way will help:
We dont want reinfection. The prescribed drug has to be effective to avoid reinfection. People stop taking drugs after 3 days. The new drug is effective in 3 days.

E re-inforces (strengthens) the argument portion: "People stop taking drugs after 4 days" --- because they feel better after 3 days. Now, since we dont want reinfection, the new drug is a better alternative (which is the conclusion of the argument).

I hope this helps and that I have not confused you further.

Kudos [?]: 23 [1], given: 0

VP
Joined: 05 Jul 2008
Posts: 1401

Kudos [?]: 469 [4], given: 1

### Show Tags

30 Aug 2008, 10:23
4
KUDOS
Ans choice E has a subtle nuance.

Patients feel fully recovered after 3 days with either drug. That is different from patients stopping taking the drug after 3 days. In essence E explains why they are stopping the drug after 3 days. They feel full recovered where as the course is 7 day. In the case of new drug, they not only feel fully recovered, but also the course is only 3 day.

Makes sense?

Kudos [?]: 469 [4], given: 1

Intern
Joined: 07 Dec 2005
Posts: 16

Kudos [?]: 23 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

30 Aug 2008, 10:23
Correction...."after 3 days" where I wrote "after 4 days" .....oops!

Kudos [?]: 23 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 06 Apr 2008
Posts: 428

Kudos [?]: 171 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

30 Aug 2008, 21:28
spriya wrote:
Q13:
The traditional treatment of strep infections has been a seven-day course of antibiotics,
either penicillin or erythromycin. However, since many patients stop taking those drugs
within three days, reinfection is common in cases where those drugs are prescribed. A
new antibiotic requires only a three-day course of treatment. Therefore, reinfection will
probably be less common in cases where the new antibiotic is prescribed than in cases
where either penicillin or erythromycin is prescribed.
Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?
A. Some of the people who are allergic to penicillin are likely to be allergic to the
new antibiotic.
B. A course of treatment with the new antibiotic costs about the same as a course of
treatment with either penicillin or erythromycin.
C. The new antibiotic has been shown to be effective in eradicating bacterial
infections other than strep.
D. Some physicians have already begun to prescribe the new antibiotic instead of
penicillin or erythromycin for the treatment of some strep infections.
E. Regardless of whether they take a traditional antibiotic or the new one, most
patients feel fully recovered after taking the drug for three days.

IMO E)

They key to argument is that most people stop taking drug after 3 days. So if new drug is only for 3 days course then re-infection will be less common

Kudos [?]: 171 [0], given: 1

Intern
Joined: 07 Dec 2005
Posts: 16

Kudos [?]: 23 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

31 Aug 2008, 09:12
So spriya, what is the correct answer as per the source of this question?

Kudos [?]: 23 [0], given: 0

Intern
Joined: 27 Aug 2007
Posts: 4

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

### Show Tags

31 Aug 2008, 10:24
indeed E

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

Manager
Joined: 02 Jun 2008
Posts: 87

Kudos [?]: 12 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

31 Aug 2008, 11:16
spriya wrote:
Q13:
The traditional treatment of strep infections has been a seven-day course of antibiotics,
either penicillin or erythromycin. However, since many patients stop taking those drugs
within three days, reinfection is common in cases where those drugs are prescribed. A
new antibiotic requires only a three-day course of treatment. Therefore, reinfection will
probably be less common in cases where the new antibiotic is prescribed than in cases
where either penicillin or erythromycin is prescribed.
Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?
A. Some of the people who are allergic to penicillin are likely to be allergic to the
new antibiotic.
B. A course of treatment with the new antibiotic costs about the same as a course of
treatment with either penicillin or erythromycin.
C. The new antibiotic has been shown to be effective in eradicating bacterial
infections other than strep.
D. Some physicians have already begun to prescribe the new antibiotic instead of
penicillin or erythromycin for the treatment of some strep infections.
E. Regardless of whether they take a traditional antibiotic or the new one, most
patients feel fully recovered after taking the drug for three days.

B. discard (cost is outside the argument)
C. discard (bacterial infections other than strep are outside the argument)
E. keep

Kudos [?]: 12 [0], given: 0

VP
Joined: 17 Jun 2008
Posts: 1373

Kudos [?]: 453 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

01 Sep 2008, 06:02
OA is E
_________________

cheers
Its Now Or Never

Kudos [?]: 453 [0], given: 0

Manager
Status: I rest, I rust.
Joined: 04 Oct 2010
Posts: 121

Kudos [?]: 131 [11], given: 9

Schools: ISB - Co 2013
WE 1: IT Professional since 2006

### Show Tags

26 Oct 2010, 05:35
11
KUDOS
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
What we need here is something that ensures that patients will not stop taking the new medicines before 3 days are over. Lets analyze the statements now:

(A) Some of the people who are allergic to penicillin are likely to be allergic to the new antibiotic.
This means that they will either stop taking the new medicine ahead of time or that it will not be effective for them. This actually weakens the argument.
(B) A course of treatment with the new antibiotic costs about the same as a course of treatment with either penicillin or erythromycin.
First of all, cost is out of scope. Even otherwise, people might have wanted to complete the course with new medicine if it was cheper, but since it is not there is no reason for them to. This neither strengthens nor weakens the argument.
(C) The new antibiotic has been shown to be effective in eradicating bacterial infections other than strep.
This is out of scope, but lets not rule it out for a moment.
(D) Some physicians have already begun to prescribe the new antibiotic instead of penicillin or erythromycin for the treatment of some strep infections.
Thank the physicians but they haven't done anything to strengthen our argument. They can prescribe the new medicine all they want but people may still not complete the dosage and get infected again. Silly people!!!
(E) Regardless of whether they take a traditional antibiotic or the new one, most patients feel fully recovered after taking the drug for three days.
This is our man. What it tells us is that, with old medicines, patients started feeling better in 3 days and hence stopped taking the dosage. With the new medicine too they would start feeling better only after 3 days; but by that time the new medicine would have done its job and hence no re-infection.

PS: Lets rule out C now
_________________

Respect,
Vaibhav

PS: Correct me if I am wrong.

Kudos [?]: 131 [11], given: 9

Manager
Joined: 17 Apr 2010
Posts: 95

Kudos [?]: 59 [0], given: 12

### Show Tags

26 Oct 2010, 06:28
Yes its E

Kudos [?]: 59 [0], given: 12

Senior Manager
Status: Can't give up
Joined: 20 Dec 2009
Posts: 305

Kudos [?]: 37 [0], given: 35

### Show Tags

26 Oct 2010, 12:52
(A) Some of the people who are allergic to penicillin are likely to be allergic to the new antibiotic - out of scope
(B) A course of treatment with the new antibiotic costs about the same as a course of treatment with either penicillin or erythromycin - cost is not in question
(C) The new antibiotic has been shown to be effective in eradicating bacterial infections other than strep. - this is of no use. it weakens the argument
(D) Some physicians have already begun to prescribe the new antibiotic instead of penicillin or erythromycin for the treatment of some strep infections. - physicians could be prescribing the new antibiotic for no reason.
(E) Regardless of whether they take a traditional antibiotic or the new one, most patients feel fully recovered after taking the drug for three days. - even though this does not make sense at all...this is the only option which states that regardless the individual will recover adding/strengthening the conclusion.

E it is

Kudos [?]: 37 [0], given: 35

Senior Manager
Joined: 23 May 2010
Posts: 413

Kudos [?]: 147 [0], given: 112

### Show Tags

26 Oct 2010, 18:56
E no dispute

Kudos [?]: 147 [0], given: 112

Intern
Joined: 16 Sep 2010
Posts: 5

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

### Show Tags

27 Oct 2010, 07:40
E

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

Manager
Status: Trying to get into the illustrious 700 club!
Joined: 18 Oct 2010
Posts: 77

Kudos [?]: 24 [1], given: 58

### Show Tags

27 Oct 2010, 10:39
1
KUDOS
icandy wrote:
Ans choice E has a subtle nuance.

Patients feel fully recovered after 3 days with either drug. That is different from patients stopping taking the drug after 3 days. In essence E explains why they are stopping the drug after 3 days. They feel full recovered where as the course is 7 day. In the case of new drug, they not only feel fully recovered, but also the course is only 3 day.

Makes sense?

It makes sense now. The most confusing part for me was "after taking the DRUG". I was unsure which drug the passage was referring to but I guess it is referring to both. Is this correct?
_________________

I'm trying to not just answer the problem but to explain how I came up with my answer. If I am incorrect or you have a better method please PM me your thoughts. Thanks!

Kudos [?]: 24 [1], given: 58

Re: CR-need help   [#permalink] 27 Oct 2010, 10:39

Go to page   Previous    1   2   3   4   5    Next  [ 93 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by