It is not uncommon, while under general anesthesia, for

Question

It is not uncommon, while under general anesthesia, for a patient’s heart to stop beating. In these situations, if a catheter hasn’t been set up to allow the surgery team to manually circulate the patient’s blood, two drugs are available for anesthesiologists to restore the breathing process. Each is effective, but the far less expensive drug, Pronofyl, causes severe allergic reactions in approximately 5% of patients, while the far more expensive drug, Rontynyl – rarely covered by insurance plans – does not cause such reactions. This can put an unfair burden on the surgery teams, however, when these stressful situations occur: in many cases, they must decide for an unconscious patient whether to risk an unlikely-but-catastrophic reaction, or create a potentially disastrous financial situation for the patient.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the conclusion above?

(A) All anesthesia providers have equal access to Pronofyl and Rontynyl.
(B) Not all insurance plans will cover the full cost of treatments for allergic reactions to drugs taken while under anesthesia.
(C) The patent for Rontynyl will not expire for several years, so the price of Ronyntyl is not expected to decrease for quite some time.
(D) There is no way to predetermine which patients will have an adverse reaction to Pronofyl.
(E) Patients who receive a dose of Rontynyl often require additional post-operative doctor visits to recover from the drug’s potency.

During the Game of Timers competition, the Quote function is not available. Please use the BIG POST REPLY button or just scroll to the bottom of the discussion to post a reply.

mira93 · Accepted Answer

In Strengthen questions, we need to carefully evaluate the argument, e.g. identify premise and conclusion. Here, conclusion says that it is solely the doctors who decide which drug to use and thus bare the consequences of their decision. We need to strengthen this claim. Although A is super tempting since it says that doctors have equal access to both the medicines and thus no comparative advantage, D strengthens to a greater degree. In D, if doctors have no idea if patients are likely to be allergic or not, then doctors play a game of win-lose. Thus, our answer is  D

Bombsante · Answer

IMO, the conclusion of this passage is that the dilemma of which drug to use puts an unfair burden on the surgery teams. So whatever increases the burden on the poor surgeons should be the best choice. POE according to my understanding:

(A) All anesthesia providers have equal access to Pronofyl and Rontynyl (Doesn't look like it would increase the quandary of the surgeons. Eliminate)
(B) Not all insurance plans will cover the full cost of treatments for allergic reactions to drugs taken while under anesthesia (Not all insurance plans but some will do? Full costs will not be covered but some costs will be? Too much confusion. Eliminate)
(C) The patent for Rontynyl will not expire for several years, so the price of Ronyntyl is not expected to decrease for quite some time (Haa, gives a good reason for lobbyists to gun for big pharma price regulations not a good reason to increase the dilemma of the surgeons. Eliminate)
(D) There is no way to predetermine which patients will have an adverse reaction to Pronofyl (Well if this is true, the poor surgeons definitely need to worry more since they won't be able to solve their quandary as per the passage. Best choice IMO)
(E) Patients who receive a dose of Rontynyl often require additional post-operative doctor visits to recover from the drug’s potency (This probably gives one more reason to surgeons not to use it. Eliminate)

I hope my answer is correct else it will be such a googly

bb · Answer

Official Explanation

OA: D

Reasoning:  
The conclusion of this argument is that surgery teams must decide whether to risk a reaction to Pronofyl or to create a financially disadvantageous situation by choosing Rontynyl instead. But note that the word “risk” makes a massive assumption here: we know that some patients have severe allergic reactions to Pronofyl, but the argument assumes that we don’t know which patients have that reaction – that’s where the element of “risk” comes in. If physicians knew ahead of time which patients should not receive Pronofyl and should instead receive Rontynyl, there wouldn’t be any risk in that decision at all. (D) highlights that assumption: if there is no way to predetermine who will have that reaction, then of course there’s an element of risk at play with doctors having to make snap decisions. If (D) were not true – if doctors knew in advance who should receive which drug – the element of risk would not appear, so (D) essentially removes a critical flaw in the argument.

Among the incorrect choices:  
   (A) is incorrect because the conclusion is only that “in many cases” surgery teams need to make this decision, so it is not important that ALL surgery teams have EQUAL access to both drugs; as long as many teams do, the conclusion will still hold.  
  (B) miszes the scope of the decision, which is about the health risk of the allergic reaction vs. the financial risk of Rontynyl.  
  (C) similarly misses the scope of the argument, as the long-term cost of Rontynyl isn’t necessary for the present-tense conclusion (this is happening) to be true.  
  And (E) adds to known information: Rontynyl is already known to be expensive, so additional doctor visits do not advance the conclusion. Plus it is unclear whether insurance would cover those visits or whether those visits would be necessary for Pronofyl. The important component of the conclusion is that surgery teams need to risk health for finances, and we need an answer choice that deals with that concept of risk.

himani2093 · Answer

It is not uncommon, while under general anesthesia, for a patient’s heart to stop beating. In these situations, if a catheter hasn’t been set up to allow the surgery team to manually circulate the patient’s blood, two drugs are available for anesthesiologists to restore the breathing process. Each is effective, but the far less expensive drug, Pronofyl, causes severe allergic reactions in approximately 5% of patients, while the far more expensive drug, Rontynyl – rarely covered by insurance plans – does not cause such reactions.

Conclusion:  This can put an unfair burden on the surgery teams, however, when these stressful situations occur: in many cases, they must decide for an unconscious patient whether to risk an unlikely-but-catastrophic reaction, or create a potentially disastrous financial situation for the patient. 
Support this dilemma and that how this dilemma can exist
Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the conclusion above?

(A) All anesthesia providers have equal access to Pronofyl and Rontynyl.
(B) Not all insurance plans will cover the full cost of treatments for allergic reactions to drugs taken while under anesthesia.
(C) The patent for Rontynyl will not expire for several years, so the price of Ronyntyl is not expected to decrease for quite some time.
(D) There is no way to predetermine which patients will have an adverse reaction to Pronofyl.
// This supports that the dilemma is real and that there is no way to predict the effect.
(E) Patients who receive a dose of Rontynyl often require additional post-operative doctor visits to recover from the drug’s potency.

globaldesi · Answer

It is not uncommon, while under general anesthesia, for a patient’s heart to stop beating. In these situations, if a catheter hasn’t been set up to allow the surgery team to manually circulate the patient’s blood, two drugs are available for anesthesiologists to restore the breathing process. Each is effective, but the far less expensive drug, Pronofyl, causes severe allergic reactions in approximately 5% of patients, while the far more expensive drug, Rontynyl – rarely covered by insurance plans – does not cause such reactions. This can put an unfair burden on the surgery teams, however, when these stressful situations occur: in many cases, they must decide for an unconscious patient whether to risk an unlikely-but-catastrophic reaction, or create a potentially disastrous financial situation for the patient.

What may strengthen if we can safely say if surgery team does not if reaction can occur or not.
If they know before hand they can consult patient and tell them.
We should try to find a link that helps set up that link between the statements

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the conclusion above?

(A) All anesthesia providers have equal access to Pronofyl and Rontynyl.  this we can take as an assumption but not having access clearly proves that surgery team will be forced to give other substitute 
(B) Not all insurance plans will cover the full cost of treatments for allergic reactions to drugs taken while under anesthesia. no effect of post surgery.. Rather it weakens the argument that cost will be same in both cases 
(C) The patent for Rontynyl will not expire for several years, so the price of Ronyntyl is not expected to decrease for quite some time. Irellevant 
(D) There is no way to predetermine which patients will have an adverse reaction to Pronofyl. this statement helps up prove that surgery team has no option ut to decide in dire situation 
(E) Patients who receive a dose of Rontynyl often require additional post-operative doctor visits to recover from the drug’s potency Irrelevant

Sanjeetgujrall · Answer

Conclusion : This can put an unfair burden on the surgery teams, however, when these stressful situations occur: in many cases, they must decide for an unconscious patient whether to risk an unlikely-but-catastrophic reaction, or create a potentially disastrous financial situation for the patient.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the conclusion above?

(A) All anesthesia providers have equal access to Pronofyl and Rontynyl.  - a very neutral statement..very partial strengthen at max

(B) Not all insurance plans will cover the full cost of treatments for allergic reactions to drugs taken while under anesthesia.  Some do...cover?? sort of weakens then.

(C) The patent for Rontynyl will not expire for several years, so the price of Ronyntyl is not expected to decrease for quite some time.  About the future price. Doesnt help us

(D) There is no way to predetermine which patients will have an adverse reaction to Pronofyl.-Correct
If I counter it , saying , doctos can predetermine or know which 5% people get allergies to drug1 it becomes easy for them to deal with the case and breaks the conclusion
So this option strengthen by saying yes indeed it is difficult to choose as doctor is uncertain about the allergies by drug1.

(E) Patients who receive a dose of Rontynyl often require additional post-operative doctor visits to recover from the drug’s potency.  Doctor visits to recover are better from the allergy actions? we dont know. Doesnt affect the argument

Rakesh2019 · Answer

It is not uncommon, while under general anesthesia, for a patient’s heart to stop beating. In these situations, if a catheter hasn’t been set up to allow the surgery team to manually circulate the patient’s blood, two drugs are available for anesthesiologists to restore the breathing process. Each is effective, but the far less expensive drug, Pronofyl, causes severe allergic reactions in approximately 5% of patients, while the far more expensive drug, Rontynyl – rarely covered by insurance plans – does not cause such reactions. This can put an unfair burden on the surgery teams, however, when these stressful situations occur: in many cases, they must decide for an unconscious patient whether to risk an unlikely-but-catastrophic reaction, or create a potentially disastrous financial situation for the patient.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the conclusion above?

The conclusion here is that "This can put an unfair burden on the surgery teams".
According to the argument the decision to choose between Pronofyl and Ronthnyl is the extra burden for the surgery team. So let us try to find the option that strengthen this linkage.

(A) All anesthesia providers have equal access to Pronofyl and Rontynyl. ------> INCORRECT. We are concerned about the unfair burden (decision on behalf of the patients) on the surgery team. This option is not related to the decision making process. 
(B) Not all insurance plans will cover the full cost of treatments for allergic reactions to drugs taken while under anesthesia. -----> INCORRECT. We are not concerned about the cost. The strengthener should be linked to the decision making on behalf of patients.
(C) The patent for Rontynyl will not expire for several years, so the price of Ronyntyl is not expected to decrease for quite some time. ------> Out of scope because the price of Ronythyl in future doesn't have any connection with the linkage mentioned above.
(D) There is no way to predetermine which patients will have an adverse reaction to Pronofyl.----> CORRECT. Suppose there is a method to determine if the patients will have an adverse reaction to Pronofyl. In that situation the surgery team will leave the decision on the patients before they are unconscious. The burden is on surgery team because it has to decide on behalf of the patients. The linkage is strengthen. 
(E) Patients who receive a dose of Rontynyl often require additional post-operative doctor visits to recover from the drug’s potency. -----> INCORRECT. We are not concerned about the post-operative situation. Out of Scope

abhishekdadarwal2009 · Answer

It is not uncommon, while under general anesthesia, for a patient’s heart to stop beating. In these situations, if a catheter hasn’t been set up to allow the surgery team to manually circulate the patient’s blood, two drugs are available for anesthesiologists to restore the breathing process. Each is effective, but the far less expensive drug, Pronofyl, causes severe allergic reactions in approximately 5% of patients, while the far more expensive drug, Rontynyl – rarely covered by insurance plans – does not cause such reactions. This can put an unfair burden on the surgery teams, however, when these stressful situations occur: in many cases, they must decide for an unconscious patient whether to risk an unlikely-but-catastrophic reaction, or create a potentially disastrous financial situation for the patient.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the conclusion above?

(A) All anesthesia providers have equal access to Pronofyl and Rontynyl.
 This is a strong contender for the strengthner but those case where the provider have access to the drug is not the correct because its the doctor who gives the anesthesia and not the supplier/provider and even if the provider is also the doctor then also the stressfull situation would arise but if we have a better choice then this choice can be crossed out for the mentioned reason.
 (B) Not all insurance plans will cover the full cost of treatments for allergic reactions to drugs taken while under anesthesia. 
Weather of not the plans wil cover the full cost of insurance is also a very mild strengthener to the point the we can not consider this as a strengthener at all because if we measure the risk of high expense vs risk of reaction then the risk of reaction will be taken as heavier and this choice does not consider if the plan consider or partially consider the coverage of the treatment.
 (C) The patent for Rontynyl will not expire for several years, so the price of Ronyntyl is not expected to decrease for quite some time. The future price decrease does not justify the situation in hand and for this reason solely it is not a good strengthener.
 (D) There is no way to predetermine which patients will have an adverse reaction to Pronofyl. 
If there was a way to predetermine which patient will have an adverse reaction to pronofyl then the doctors can test for reaction before adminstring anesthesia and in that case the stressfull situation would not occur at all,meanwhile if there is no way to predetermine then the stressfull situation will occur. thus this is the correct strengthener as it eliminates apotential weakner.
 (E) Patients who receive a dose of Rontynyl often require additional post-operative doctor visits to recover from the drug’s potency.
 The patients who recieve the expensive drug further have to take further treatment which would increase the price even more but this is not helping on the stressfull situation more but only increasing the stress and not actaully what is leading to the stress and for this reason is out.

rish2708 · Answer

Conclusion: This can put an unfair burden on the surgery teams
Basis: they must decide for an unconscious patient whether to risk an unlikely-but-catastrophic reaction, or create a potentially disastrous financial situation for the patient.

A pre-thought that quickly comes to mind is: What if these surgeons could use the third alternative- to use the catheter and catheter is cheap? Then they are not in the disadvantage and the necessity ("must") to decide also goes away.

So, if an option suggests us that there is nothing else that can be done prior to the situation such as applying catheter which is cheap and reaction free, then the unfair burden is justified and my belief in the conclusion increases.

With this if we proceed to the options:
A. This option bears no impact, because the impact of decision of doctors can't be linked to supply of the source in the given scope of the argument

B. This option gives a slight negative impact the reasoning. When we say that  some insurance  cover the cost of all allergic reactions under anaesthesia, then this gives the doctor some advantage while deciding. Because this makes them a slight secure to bend towards the medicine which is allergic and less expensive. This option will give a slight negative impact to the conclusion.

Think it further -> If you know A is cheap + its side effects can be controlled somewhat ( with insuring them) and you have B which is highly expensive then obviously you have a cushion and a reason to go with A. So it's a mild weakener and can be eliminated

C. This option tells that the price of expensive one will be intact. With it's price being intact, we still do not know which one they would chose. It might be they know that the price is not gonna change, and they would opt for allergic ones. The basis of decision is not strengthened because in the argument we already know that the prices are high. It just aids that prices will be high further. What happens in future, can't impact the decision the doctors have to take right now. So we can eliminate this

D. This is actually an   assumption   to the argument. If we take the reverse case where they knew the well-suited patients who would have reactions to Pronofyl ( they would have a gentle benefit while taking decision). They could use the catheter for those patients and save them the burden of the expense. ( Remember the passage mentions that only 5% of the patients are prone to that), so pre - knowing this would definetely provide them the cushion. So if the negation of this statement breaks down the conclusion, then the option as is will STRENGTHEN it and will be REQUIRED for the conclusion to hold. So this is CORRECT answer.

E. This option talks about a case that would occur post the decision has been taken. So what happens in future, like option C, doesn't impact the fairness or unfairness in decision now.

Regards,
Rishav

baru · Answer

It is not uncommon, while under general anesthesia, for a patient’s heart to stop beating. In these situations, if a catheter hasn’t been set up to allow the surgery team to manually circulate the patient’s blood, two drugs are available for anesthesiologists to restore the breathing process. Each is effective, but the far less expensive drug, Pronofyl, causes severe allergic reactions in approximately 5% of patients, while the far more expensive drug, Rontynyl – rarely covered by insurance plans – does not cause such reactions. This can put an unfair burden on the surgery teams, however, when these stressful situations occur: in many cases, they must decide for an unconscious patient whether to risk an unlikely-but-catastrophic reaction, or create a potentially disastrous financial situation for the patient.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the conclusion above?

there are 2 drugs -- 
 one - is cheap but has side effect - only to 5% patients
 other - is very very expensive 
Conclusion : this puts pressure on doctors who operate on them to decide what to be used.

Pre think:

strengthen this conclusion we should be able to say that - it is indeed difficult to decide which medicine to use for the patient .

(A) All anesthesia providers have equal access to Pronofyl and Rontynyl. -Incorrect 
 This would be an assumption rather than a strengthen 
(B) Not all insurance plans will cover the full cost of treatments for allergic reactions to drugs taken while under anesthesia.-Incorrect
Any ways the reactions to the first drug is alone quite severe , so we are not bother about the money spent on drugs to allergies or its insurance.

(C) The patent for Rontynyl will not expire for several years, so the price of Ronyntyl is not expected to decrease for quite some time.-Incorrect
Out of context - even if drug2 cost may decrease , current scenario wont change.
 (D) There is no way to predetermine which patients will have an adverse reaction to Pronofyl.-Correct
If I counter it , saying , doctos can predetermine or know which 5% people get allergies to drug1 it becomes easy for them to deal with the case and breaks the conclusion
So this option strengthen by saying yes indeed it is difficult to choose as doctor is uncertain about the allergies by drug1.

(E) Patients who receive a dose of Rontynyl often require additional post-operative doctor visits to recover from the drug’s potency.-Incorrect
its mentioned in the passage that drug2 itself is highly expensive , adding little more cost to it doesn't change any thing or add a new point to strengthen

MayankSingh · Answer

Refer image for details.

Brief:
Conclusion- Deciding between two drugs for patient under stressful condition is an unfair burden on surgery team.
Primary Focus: Allergy & Cost (of drug)

MahmoudFawzy · Answer

first, lets state the conclusion to be strengthened: "  Burden of choice between catastrophic reaction and disastrous financial situation  "

lets use negation technique and find which will seriously weaken the conclusion if true.

(A) All anesthesia providers have equal access to Pronofyl and Rontynyl. 
 Negation:  "providers have  no  equal access"
" no use at all ": Negation can't help much. unequal access can't mean the lack of one type for the favor of the other to weaken the choice burden

(B) Not all insurance plans will cover the full cost of treatments for allergic reactions to drugs taken while under anesthesia. 
 Negation:  " All  insurance plans will cover the costs"
" irrelevant!! so What? ": is the cost the problem of the allergy, what about risking the patients' life?? how do we know whether the allergy occurs during anesthesia or after surgery??

(C) The patent for Rontynyl will not expire for several years, so the price of Ronyntyl is not expected to decrease for quite some time. 
 Negation:  "patent for Rontynyl  will expire  and cost  will decrease "
 clearly out of scope , we are dealing with certain situation presented in the premise, the future is out of scope.

(D) There is no way to predetermine which patients will have an adverse reaction to Pronofyl. 
 Negation:  " there is a way  to predetermine which patients will have an adverse reaction to Pronofyl"
If this is true, there is no choice burden. The surgeon can do the test and find out which choice is more suitable,  destroying the dilemma .

(E) Patients who receive a dose of Rontynyl often require additional post-operative doctor visits to recover from the drug’s potency. 
 Negation:  "Rontynyl  don't  often require additional post-operative doctor visits to recover"
 out of scope:  post-operative visits has nothing to do with the choice burden.

D

Verbal33 · Answer

It is not uncommon, while under general anesthesia, for a patient’s heart to stop beating. In these situations, if a catheter hasn’t been set up to allow the surgery team to manually circulate the patient’s blood, two drugs are available for anesthesiologists to restore the breathing process. Each is effective, but the far less expensive drug, Pronofyl, causes severe allergic reactions in approximately 5% of patients, while the far more expensive drug, Rontynyl – rarely covered by insurance plans – does not cause such reactions. This can put an unfair burden on the surgery teams, however, when these stressful situations occur: in many cases, they must decide for an unconscious patient whether to risk an unlikely-but-catastrophic reaction, or create a potentially disastrous financial situation for the patient.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the conclusion above?
 Conclusion is: This can put an unfair burden on the surgery teams. We have to strengthen this conclusion.

(A) All anesthesia providers have equal access to Pronofyl and Rontynyl.
 Equal access does put a burden of which to drug to use. But we will check other options if we find better. 
(B) Not all insurance plans will cover the full cost of treatments for allergic reactions to drugs taken while under anesthesia.
 If allergic reaction is not covered under insurance then there is no burden for which drug to use. 
(C) The patent for Rontynyl will not expire for several years, so the price of Ronyntyl is not expected to decrease for quite some time.
 We are not talking about price but we want something which will increase unfair burden. 
(D) There is no way to predetermine which patients will have an adverse reaction to Pronofyl.
 If there is a way to determine if a patient is allergic or not it undermines the conclusion so this is a correct option. 
(E) Patients who receive a dose of Rontynyl often require additional post-operative doctor visits to recover from the drug’s potency.
 This option is irrelevant.

Srijan2609 · Answer

Firstly lets find out the conclusion :

however, when these stressful situations occur: in many cases, they must decide for an unconscious patient whether to risk an unlikely-but-catastrophic reaction, or create a potentially disastrous financial situation for the patient.(this is the conclusion )

Lets gets to the options

A) All anesthesia providers have equal access to Pronofyl and Rontynyl.

THIS OPTION IS NOT STRENGTHNING THE CONCLUSION , AVAILABILITY OF DRUGS WILL HAVE NO IMPACT ON DECISION

.
(B) Not all insurance plans will cover the full cost of treatments for allergic reactions to drugs taken while under anesthesia.

HERE THE INSURANCE PROBLEMS WILL AGAIN HAVE NO EFFECT ON DECISION OF DOCTORS

C) The patent for Rontynyl will not expire for several years, so the price of Ronyntyl is not expected to decrease for quite some time.

THIS WAS CLOSE BUT LETS KEEP IT FOR CONSERVATIVE PURPOSE .

D) There is no way to predetermine which patients will have an adverse reaction to Pronofyl.

THIS LOOKS PRETTY GOOD BECAUSE THIS ADDS TO THE DESCION MAKING NOW , DOCTORS WILL HAVE TO REACT ON TIME AND MAKE SPLIT DECISION .

(E) Patients who receive a dose of Rontynyl often require additional post-operative doctor visits to recover from the drug’s potency.

THIS ONE IS OUT OF THE CONTEXT COMPLETELY , THIS AGAIN IS NOT DOING ANYTHING TO THE CONCLUSION .

Posted from my mobile device

800Dreamer · Answer

To strengthen the conclusion : This can be put an unfair burden on the surgery teams....
So we need to find an option which makes us believe more in this thought.

SO lets see if there is any assumption to reach this conclusion. If yes, then we can strengthen that.

Lets pre-think in what cases this selection of drugs be not unfair.
1. It is known that pronofyl will be allergic to this particular patient and hence the other expensive drug is the desirable option for that patient.
2. If the consent is already taken from patients which drug to give.

So the assumption will be negation of both the above points.
1. It is not known which patient will be allergic to pronofyl.
2. Consent is not already given.

SO if any options resonates with any of these 2 assumptions, we have our strengthener.

IMO. D resonates with assumption 1. 
Hence IMO: Answer is (D)

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

It is not uncommon, while under general anesthesia, for

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

It is not uncommon, while under general anesthesia, for

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards