Last visit was: 01 Sep 2026, 02:19 It is currently 01 Sep 2026, 02:19
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
805+ (Hard)|   Weaken|         
User avatar
Bunuel
User avatar
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Last visit: 01 Sep 2026
Posts: 113,004
Own Kudos:
838,271
 [8]
Given Kudos: 111,243
Products:
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 113,004
Kudos: 838,271
 [8]
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
6
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Most Helpful Reply
User avatar
Bunuel
User avatar
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Last visit: 01 Sep 2026
Posts: 113,004
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 111,243
Products:
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 113,004
Kudos: 838,271
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
General Discussion
User avatar
feistygirl
Joined: 26 Apr 2026
Last visit: 06 Aug 2026
Posts: 60
Own Kudos:
54
 [1]
Posts: 60
Kudos: 54
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
avatar
DachauerDon
Joined: 19 Apr 2025
Last visit: 16 Aug 2026
Posts: 88
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 30
Location: Germany
Schools: LBS
Products:
Schools: LBS
Posts: 88
Kudos: 71
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Answer: E)

Conclusion: The drug had provided little meaningful relief to patients

A) VERY tempting at first because if the people who reported higher pain scores at the beginning are seeing greater average pain reduction, this calls into question the absolute truth of the conclusion that the drug provided little meaningful relief to patients. However, we don't know how many of the patients reported higher pain scores. Let's say only 3 out of 1000 people did; would it then still be fair to conclude that the drug had little meaningful impact? Yes. -> INCORRECT
B) We're told in the prompt that almost all people completed the trial without interruption -> INCORRECT
C) Strengthens the conclusion -> INCORRECT
D) Still, the cited evidence revealed little change in reported pain scores, so the change in effect of the drug over time isn't relevant -> INCORRECT
E) If comparable drugs always produce modest outcomes, then the conclusion that this drug had no meaningful impact is questionable -> CORRECT
User avatar
vasu1104
Joined: 10 Feb 2023
Last visit: 01 Sep 2026
Posts: 730
Own Kudos:
417
 [1]
Given Kudos: 672
Location: Canada
Products:
Posts: 730
Kudos: 417
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
there was 12 week clinical trial of new pain killer.
during this, all patients completed full dosing without intrepution.
but data showed that the average reduction in pain scores across the full course was only modest.

conclusion= drug had provided little meaningful relief to patients.

just because the average was modest, it concluded that drug had little meaningful relief to patients.

A its just comparing two differernt people but that doeent change the fact. what if there were more people with low initial pain and that they didnt have enough reduction, then conclusion hold true. so out.
B but passage says that everyone had completed as per schedule without interrepution. so this comparison doesnt make any sense. out.
C this talks about people having placebo and they had the same results. but that doesnt provide any reason why the conclusion is flawed here. out.
D that means drug takes time to show its effect. so because for first 8 week there was negligible reduction, they made the conclusion that drug has modest effect. but in realtiy it takes time for drug to show its effects. so this average is not appropriate way to draw conclusion.
E then it strengthen the conclusion though.

choice D

Bunuel
A pharmaceutical company recently completed a 12-week clinical trial of a new painkiller, in which nearly all patients completed the full dosing schedule without interruption. A researcher analyzing the results concluded that the drug had provided little meaningful relief to patients, pointing to data showing that the average reduction in pain scores across the full course of the trial was only modest.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the researcher's conclusion?

(A) Among patients who entered the trial with the highest initial pain scores, average reductions by the end of the study were greater than those observed in patients who began with only mild or moderate pain.

(B) Patients who adhered to the prescribed dosing schedule without interruption reported substantially greater pain reductions than those who missed at least one dose during the trial.

(C) Patients who were given a placebo rather than the drug reported similarly modest reductions in pain scores over the same 12-week period.

(D) Pain score reductions among patients in the trial were negligible during the first eight weeks but accelerated sharply in the final four weeks as the drug reached its full therapeutic concentration in the bloodstream.

(E) The chronic pain condition targeted by the drug is one for which all currently available treatments have historically produced only modest average reductions in standardized pain scores.

 


This question was provided by GMAT Club
for the GMAT World Cup Competition

Win over $30,000 in prizes such as Courses, Tests, Private Tutoring, and more

 


⚠️ Important: GMAT Club does not allow AI-generated posts. AI-generated solutions are not eligible for kudos, and users who post them may face moderation action, including a ban.
User avatar
GulfTube
Joined: 13 Apr 2026
Last visit: 17 Aug 2026
Posts: 210
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 77
Posts: 210
Kudos: 70
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
the researcher's conclusion: drug provided little meaningful relief to patients.
his premise: data showed avg reduction in pain score across full course of trial was modest.

we need to weaken the researcher's conclusion:
the researcher assumes that the modest overall average pain score reduction corresponds to modest relief throughout the 12-week course, and that there weren't any periods in the trial where patients got meaningful relief.

A) compares two groups of patients. even if those with higher initial pain scores saw a greater average reduction than others, it could have been balanced out by the lesser average reduction in other group to make the overall average reduction to be modest which makes the conclusion hold. incorrect.
B) we know that those who adhered to schedule formed nearly the entire patient base. if this group reported substantial greater pain reduction compared to others, it seems plausible that overall avg reduction will be high (not modest) but what if this comparative substantial greater reduction itself is modest reduction in absolute terms, then since this groups forms nearly the entire weightage of the patient base, the overall reduction will be modest making the conclusion hold. incorrect.
C) this strengthens the argument, if anything, since if the tested drug didn't show significant difference compared to placebo, it is fair to conclude that the drug did not make a significant impact. incorrect.
D) during the first eight weeks the pain reduction was negligible, but accelerated sharply during last four weeks. this sharp acceleration in pain score reduction negates the researcher's conclusion of little meaningful relief hence weakens the conclusion. correct.
E) other treatments is irrelevant to the argument of this specific drug. incorrect.
User avatar
Stam9
Joined: 06 May 2026
Last visit: 31 Aug 2026
Posts: 3
Own Kudos:
2
 [1]
Posts: 3
Kudos: 2
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
So D is the answer because of the fact that it was analyzed over the full 12 weeks. But it reached peak therapeutic concentration only in the last 4 weeks. This makes the 1st 8 weeks affect the results of the analysis. Making it look like it was only modest while it was actually very effective
User avatar
ankushsambare
Joined: 13 Jun 2022
Last visit: 31 Aug 2026
Posts: 310
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 225
Location: India
GPA: 2.4
Products:
Posts: 310
Kudos: 222
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Conc: New painkiller provided little relief

Premise: Avg reduction in pain was low

Gap: Low (little/no) reduction means drug is not meaningful

A: High pain (sub-group) benefited more X
B: Attack on premise X
C: Drug no better than placebo (Strength) X
D that means drug takes time to show its effect. so because for first 8 week there was negligible reduction, they made the conclusion that drug has modest effect. but in realitiy it takes time for drug to show its effects. so this average is not appropriate way to draw conclusion. x
E then it strengthen the conclusion though.
User avatar
nuwaaanda
Joined: 15 Dec 2025
Last visit: 31 Aug 2026
Posts: 63
Own Kudos:
50
 [1]
Given Kudos: 37
Posts: 63
Kudos: 50
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
D is the correct answer choice as per me.

Option A: This option talks more about comparing pain scores of different patients in the trial. While it is good that people with higher pain relief experienced greater pain reduction, it does not mean that the trial is successful. We can eliminate this as there are better options available.

Option B: This was a close second for me on first reading. It is possible that people who missed doses, could be pulling the average score of the study down. However, upon reading carefully, we know that nearly all patients completed the full dosing schedule without interruption. Hence, we can eliminate this since the passage has already mentioned that this is not the case.

Option C: Again, talking about a subset of patients should not help us. Overall as a study, this option fails to weaken/undermine the researchers conclusion. In fact this actually strengthens the argument of the researcher. We can eliminate this.

Option D: This was the correct one for me. Since the last part mentions that the average score was modest ACROSS weeks, this option explains how that could have happened. Since the results were negligible in the first few weeks, these weeks are actually pulling down the average. The sharp rise actually indicates that the medicine takes some time to take effect and ultimately is helping patients, thus undermining the researchers argument.

Option E: Comparison with other available treatments is not the point of the stem. The conclusion is specifically for this particular treatment's trial. This is irrelevant and we can eliminate it.
User avatar
tannu.jha_0104
Joined: 07 Apr 2024
Last visit: 30 Aug 2026
Posts: 46
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 69
Location: India
GMAT 1: 200 Q10 V10
GRE 1: Q135 V135
GMAT 1: 200 Q10 V10
GRE 1: Q135 V135
Posts: 46
Kudos: 51
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
con---new painkiller little meaningful relief
why author is saying that-- based on trial -- the avg reduction....weak trial was only modest
prethinking flaw-the researcher treats maths avg across an entire period as proof of uniform failure

avg data is not equal to every patient dats

A-Irrelvent subjects
B-misaligned sample
C- strenghthner
D-this matches prethinking
E- comp not needed
User avatar
paragw
Joined: 17 May 2024
Last visit: 01 Sep 2026
Posts: 364
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 62
Posts: 364
Kudos: 373
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Here's my solution for this question
Attachments

Screenshot_2026-07-13-21-22-06-55_40deb401b9ffe8e1df2f1cc5ba480b12.jpg
Screenshot_2026-07-13-21-22-06-55_40deb401b9ffe8e1df2f1cc5ba480b12.jpg [ 1.12 MiB | Viewed 1058 times ]

User avatar
Archit3110
User avatar
Major Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2017
Last visit: 01 Sep 2026
Posts: 8,808
Own Kudos:
5,328
 [1]
Given Kudos: 243
Status:You learn more from failure than from success.
Location: India
Concentration: Sustainability, Marketing
GMAT Focus 1: 545 Q79 V79 DI73
GMAT Focus 2: 645 Q83 V82 DI81
GPA: 4
WE:Marketing (Energy)
GMAT Focus 2: 645 Q83 V82 DI81
Posts: 8,808
Kudos: 5,328
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
A pharmaceutical company recently completed a 12-week clinical trial of a new painkiller, in which nearly all patients completed the full dosing schedule without interruption. A researcher analyzing the results concluded that the drug had provided little meaningful relief to patients, pointing to data showing that the average reduction in pain scores across the full course of the trial was only modest.


Premise :
12 week clinical trial of a new pain killer , all patients completed the full dosing schedule without interruption...

IC : reasercher concluded that the drug provided little meaningful relief to patients , and data showed average reduction in pain scores across the full course of trial was modest...

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the researcher's conclusion?

Weakener type CR



(A) Among patients who entered the trial with the highest initial pain scores, average reductions by the end of the study were greater than those observed in patients who began with only mild or moderate pain.

there is no data on count of such patients with highest score and that with mild , insufficient to weaken the conclusion ; in correct option

(B) Patients who adhered to the prescribed dosing schedule without interruption reported substantially greater pain reductions than those who missed at least one dose during the trial.

argument states that all patients followed dosing as per schedule ; in correct option

(C) Patients who were given a placebo rather than the drug reported similarly modest reductions in pain scores over the same 12-week period.

option is not relevant to argument ; in correct option

(D) Pain score reductions among patients in the trial were negligible during the first eight weeks but accelerated sharply in the final four weeks as the drug reached its full therapeutic concentration in the bloodstream.


this is a solid weakened as it provides alternate reason why the score was modest as the avg for 8 weeks was modest , but in the later 4 weeks of trial there was a sharp improvement in patients as the medicine reached blood stream...
correct option


(E) The chronic pain condition targeted by the drug is one for which all currently available treatments have historically produced only modest average reductions in standardized pain scores.


not a valid point of argument as this options discusses about situation which is not on lines of premise; incorrect option

OPTION D is correct
User avatar
RDM42
Joined: 20 Jan 2025
Last visit: 24 Aug 2026
Posts: 464
Own Kudos:
328
 [1]
Given Kudos: 29
Posts: 464
Kudos: 328
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
A pharmaceutical company recently completed a 12-week clinical trial of a new painkiller, in which nearly all patients completed the full dosing schedule without interruption. A researcher analyzing the results concluded that the drug had provided little meaningful relief to patients, pointing to data showing that the average reduction in pain scores across the full course of the trial was only modest.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the researcher's conclusion?

(A) Among patients who entered the trial with the highest initial pain scores, average reductions by the end of the study were greater than those observed in patients who began with only mild or moderate pain. It only worked for some people. Weakens a little. MAYBE
(B) Patients who adhered to the prescribed dosing schedule without interruption reported substantially greater pain reductions than those who missed at least one dose during the trial. It condradicts what's told in argument. NO
(C) Patients who were given a placebo rather than the drug reported similarly modest reductions in pain scores over the same 12-week period. Tells alternate treatment method. NO
(D) Pain score reductions among patients in the trial were negligible during the first eight weeks but accelerated sharply in the final four weeks as the drug reached its full therapeutic concentration in the bloodstream.
This could be reason that average data is modest but drug is actually showing results. ANSWER
(E) The chronic pain condition targeted by the drug is one for which all currently available treatments have historically produced only modest average reductions in standardized pain scores. No effect on conclusion. NO

D
User avatar
Maesha
Joined: 11 Jun 2026
Last visit: 31 Jul 2026
Posts: 29
Own Kudos:
25
 [1]
Given Kudos: 4
Concentration: Leadership, Economics
Schools: HBS '26 (S)
Schools: HBS '26 (S)
Posts: 29
Kudos: 25
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Option a doesnt provide any information rather than stating that the drug was working for people with highest initial pain score than with mild pain .

option b only denotes that the drug was more effective when taken regularly at prescribed dose , nothing else .

option c , if true , bolsters the researchers conclusion as it means , effect of drug and placebo were same on two variable groups.

option d , this is true , as there are many drugs like fluoxitine which need minimum 8-12 weeks of daily dosing to show effect . if the researcher did average of full 12 weeks the scores will be obviously low .As initial 8 weeks of therapeutic doses were needed regularly only to maintain the level of drug concentraton in blood , the result of 8 weeks wont show significant result . Doing an average of full 12 weeks will only result in the initial 8 week scores pulling down the score of last 4 weeks.

option e , just because currently available treatments have resulted in modest average that doesnt mean the newer drug will also produce same effect .

so , as per my opinnion , option d is the correct choice to weaken the researcher conclusion. also , his approach of just finding out simple average of 12 weeks score is wrong , as this method treats every week's result as equal. in this case , a randomized longitudinal study will be best fit to find out whether the drug is actually effective to reduce pain or not.
User avatar
prepapr
Joined: 06 Jan 2025
Last visit: 25 Aug 2026
Posts: 165
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 71
Location: India
GMAT Focus 1: 675 Q84 V84 DI82
GPA: 8.9
Products:
GMAT Focus 1: 675 Q84 V84 DI82
Posts: 165
Kudos: 121
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Premise : Nearly all patients completed the dosing schedule without interruption
Conclusion : The drug provided little meaningful relief
Logical gap: JUmping from moderate average pain reduction to saying that drug provided no meaningful relief

Analysing answer choices
A) This shows some groups benefited more. This does not weaken the conclusion overall
B) This do not show that the drug actually worked. The argument says nearly all completed the dosing
C) This supports the conslusion by showing drug is not better than placebo
D) Improvement time is of little consideration here.
E) A modest reduction in this case can still be clinically significant and meaningful. This attacks the logical gap and undermines the conclusion

E is the answer.
Bunuel
A pharmaceutical company recently completed a 12-week clinical trial of a new painkiller, in which nearly all patients completed the full dosing schedule without interruption. A researcher analyzing the results concluded that the drug had provided little meaningful relief to patients, pointing to data showing that the average reduction in pain scores across the full course of the trial was only modest.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the researcher's conclusion?

(A) Among patients who entered the trial with the highest initial pain scores, average reductions by the end of the study were greater than those observed in patients who began with only mild or moderate pain.

(B) Patients who adhered to the prescribed dosing schedule without interruption reported substantially greater pain reductions than those who missed at least one dose during the trial.

(C) Patients who were given a placebo rather than the drug reported similarly modest reductions in pain scores over the same 12-week period.

(D) Pain score reductions among patients in the trial were negligible during the first eight weeks but accelerated sharply in the final four weeks as the drug reached its full therapeutic concentration in the bloodstream.

(E) The chronic pain condition targeted by the drug is one for which all currently available treatments have historically produced only modest average reductions in standardized pain scores.

 


This question was provided by GMAT Club
for the GMAT World Cup Competition

Win over $30,000 in prizes such as Courses, Tests, Private Tutoring, and more

 


⚠️ Important: GMAT Club does not allow AI-generated posts. AI-generated solutions are not eligible for kudos, and users who post them may face moderation action, including a ban.
User avatar
dhart
Joined: 02 Feb 2026
Last visit: 31 Aug 2026
Posts: 176
Own Kudos:
86
 [1]
Given Kudos: 34
Posts: 176
Kudos: 86
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
D) Pain score reduction was less during the intial eight weeks but it became high in the last 4 weeks when the effect of during reached its best in the theraputic blood stream.
So even the average pain score reduction may come out less but the final effect is more , whcih might lead to a meaningful cure
User avatar
Sanny7
Joined: 10 Apr 2026
Last visit: 19 Aug 2026
Posts: 52
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 6
Products:
Posts: 52
Kudos: 45
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
The key word is average, - Researchers conclusion states the painkillers had average pain reduction over the full 12 week course

D talks about how it was passive for the first few weeks and how it was aggressive for the last few weeks, meaning it wasn't the average across all 12 weeks

why not other options

A - it talks about severity, rather than pain relief, doesn't talk about averages at all
B - well, this statement looks supporting to the argument, but it doesn't talk about averages again, also the passage says, "nearly all patients ... without interruption", which tells it only focusses only on the good patients who listened, so noncompliance isn't a bit factor at all
C - this seems tempting, as it calls into another type and says patients reported the same with the other type too, but it is not as strong as D, as it only talks about the modest reductions
E - it supports the argument again
User avatar
harishj1996
Joined: 01 Jun 2026
Last visit: 01 Aug 2026
Posts: 38
Own Kudos:
28
 [1]
Given Kudos: 5
Products:
Posts: 38
Kudos: 28
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Answer is D.

In this question, we can use the example of a weighted average in determining the answer or the logic for the answer.

In a weaken question, we are required to first understand what is the conclusion and what is the premise accordingly supporting the said conclusion and attempt to resolve the question.

Firstly, the study quotes over an AVERAGE of 12 weeks, the reduction in pain was modest and so it was concluded that the drug provided little meaningful relief. Though it could be the case that perhaps over many weeks it didn't have an effect or at the end it started having a greater effect. Or for instance, the patients who had the highest pain complaints were very less and most of the other patients had no or negligible pain in the beginning.

So either which way the argument is rationalized prior to starting the question, it reminds us of the concept of weighted averages, wherein the average will tend to weigh towards that factor which is greater in number (n). So if the number of weeks or number of patients having modest complaints or not very effective in pain reduction is more, then the average will trend to a modest degree as compared to a big spike towards the higher or lower end.

Now looking at the options:

A - This option shows why the drug works for some better than others but it still doesn't explain why overall there was only a modest reduction in the pain average. Hence the option is a trap but ultimately has to be ruled out.
B - Not relevant. We are not concerned with comparing the drug trials between those who took the doses correctly vs. those who missed.
C - Out of scope. Not concerned with Placebo.
D - CORRECT. This exactly compares and tallies with our weighted average concept. This means for the first 8 weeks, the pain reduction was negligible. But subsequent 4 weeks, once it absorbed effectively, the pain reduction was substantial. Therefore, though it works very well, because it takes a long time to absorb and hence the weighted average tilts still towards modest. As a result, the option checks our test and is correct.
E - Out of scope. We are not concerned with all the other drugs in the market and whether they also perform the same way. It doesn't tell us as to the results just learned about this unique drug, rather accepting it as a foregone conclusion.
User avatar
Vivek1707
Joined: 22 May 2020
Last visit: 01 Sep 2026
Posts: 345
Own Kudos:
176
 [1]
Given Kudos: 150
Products:
Posts: 345
Kudos: 176
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
A. Say there were 3-4 guys who had the highest initial pain scores and for them the reduction was 1% and for the rest of the people the reduction was 0.5%. This doesn't weaken the fact that the drug is bad.
B. Nope, the question is about overall avg reduction in pain scores not about who took the drugs and who dint.
C. This may infact strengthen the conclusion that the drug is bad.
D. Yup, this says that final 4 weeks the drug showed its real power when it was concentrated in the blood stream. Hence checking the avg for the full 12 months may not give the real picture.
E. This talks more about the pain condition and not the efficacy of the drug. Eliminate.

I'll go with D

Bunuel
A pharmaceutical company recently completed a 12-week clinical trial of a new painkiller, in which nearly all patients completed the full dosing schedule without interruption. A researcher analyzing the results concluded that the drug had provided little meaningful relief to patients, pointing to data showing that the average reduction in pain scores across the full course of the trial was only modest.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the researcher's conclusion?

(A) Among patients who entered the trial with the highest initial pain scores, average reductions by the end of the study were greater than those observed in patients who began with only mild or moderate pain.

(B) Patients who adhered to the prescribed dosing schedule without interruption reported substantially greater pain reductions than those who missed at least one dose during the trial.

(C) Patients who were given a placebo rather than the drug reported similarly modest reductions in pain scores over the same 12-week period.

(D) Pain score reductions among patients in the trial were negligible during the first eight weeks but accelerated sharply in the final four weeks as the drug reached its full therapeutic concentration in the bloodstream.

(E) The chronic pain condition targeted by the drug is one for which all currently available treatments have historically produced only modest average reductions in standardized pain scores.

 


This question was provided by GMAT Club
for the GMAT World Cup Competition

Win over $30,000 in prizes such as Courses, Tests, Private Tutoring, and more

 


⚠️ Important: GMAT Club does not allow AI-generated posts. AI-generated solutions are not eligible for kudos, and users who post them may face moderation action, including a ban.
User avatar
sunshineeee
Joined: 17 May 2020
Last visit: 30 Aug 2026
Posts: 174
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 266
Location: Indonesia
Products:
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Conclusion: The drug provided LITTLE meaningful relief to patients.

Evidence:
- Average reduction in pain score in the trial was ONLY MODEST

Missing link/assumption: the researcher expects a BIG IMPACT on RELIEF for patients when the avg reduction in PAIN SCORE is NOT MODEST.

Weakens: how if the modest score has a large impact on patients? or even only modest score but has big impact on patients?

  • Relevant answer is E.
Why? It explained that a modest pain score is common in this type of research. Which weakens the conclusion.

Why incorrect?
A. Irrelevant. We do not compare the highest pain scores
B. Irrelevant. We do not object to the schedule of dosing
C. Irrelevant. We do not need a placebo as a comparison
D. Irrelevant. It only explains the process during the 12-week research.

Bunuel
A pharmaceutical company recently completed a 12-week clinical trial of a new painkiller, in which nearly all patients completed the full dosing schedule without interruption. A researcher analyzing the results concluded that the drug had provided little meaningful relief to patients, pointing to data showing that the average reduction in pain scores across the full course of the trial was only modest.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the researcher's conclusion?

(A) Among patients who entered the trial with the highest initial pain scores, average reductions by the end of the study were greater than those observed in patients who began with only mild or moderate pain.

(B) Patients who adhered to the prescribed dosing schedule without interruption reported substantially greater pain reductions than those who missed at least one dose during the trial.

(C) Patients who were given a placebo rather than the drug reported similarly modest reductions in pain scores over the same 12-week period.

(D) Pain score reductions among patients in the trial were negligible during the first eight weeks but accelerated sharply in the final four weeks as the drug reached its full therapeutic concentration in the bloodstream.

(E) The chronic pain condition targeted by the drug is one for which all currently available treatments have historically produced only modest average reductions in standardized pain scores.

 


This question was provided by GMAT Club
for the GMAT World Cup Competition

Win over $30,000 in prizes such as Courses, Tests, Private Tutoring, and more

 


⚠️ Important: GMAT Club does not allow AI-generated posts. AI-generated solutions are not eligible for kudos, and users who post them may face moderation action, including a ban.
 1   2   3   4   
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7399 posts
Verbal Forum Moderator
704 posts