Doctor: While a few alternative medicines have dangerous

Question

Doctor: While a few alternative medicines have dangerous side effects, some, such as many herbs, have been proven safe to consume. Thus, though there is little firm evidence of medicinal effect, advocates of these herbs as remedies for serious illnesses should always be allowed to prescribe them, since their patients will not be harmed, and might be helped, by the use of these products.

Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the doctor's argument?

A) Many practitioners and patients neglect more effective conventional medicines in favor of herbal remedies.
B) Many herbal remedies are marketed with claims of proven effectiveness when in fact their effectiveness is unproven.
C) Some patients may have allergic reactions to certain medicines that have been tolerated by other patients.
D) The vast majority of purveyors of alternative medicines are driven as much by the profit motive as by a regard for their patients' health.
E) Any pain relief or other benefits of many herbs have been proven to derive entirely from patients' belief in the remedy, rather than from its biochemical properties.

kumar23badgujar · Accepted Answer

Hi All,

Lets look at the argument the author is trying to make:

Advocates of herbal meds should  "always"  be allowed to prescribe them for serious illness, as they are not harmful and might help the patient.

Now lets look at our options:

1.Many practitioners and patients neglect more effective conventional medicines in favor of herbal remedies. 
This statement clearly suggests that the doctors should not be allowed to prescribe herbal remedies all the time, since better conventional medicines are available that will definitely help a patient. Hence this weakens the argument of always allowing practitioners to prescribe herbal meds.

2.Many herbal remedies are marketed with claims of proven effectiveness when in fact their effectiveness is unproven. 
This does weaken authors argument in anyway.

3.Some patients may have allergic reactions to certain medicines that have been tolerated by other patients. 
This statement talks about allergic reactions to certain medicines - conventional or remedies not specified - that might affect some patients. This does not provide enough evidence to weaken authors argument.

4.The vast majority of purveyors of alternative medicines are driven as much by the profit motive as by a regard for their patients' health. 
This statement gives just another reason that profit is another motive for which alternative meds can be suggested. This does not hamper the argument.

5.Any pain relief or other benefits of many herbs have been proven to derive entirely from patients' belief in the remedy, rather than from its biochemical properties. 
This statement implies that herbal medicines are not the real reason why a patient consuming them may be benefited, it is the patients belief in remedy. However, it does not touch our argument or weaken our assumption in any way.

Correct Ans:  A

Correct me if I am wrong.

Transcendentalist · Answer

Conclusion : Patients cannot be harmed and might be helped if practitioners were allowed to prescribe these.

IMO A

If many practitioners and patients neglect effective conventional medicines in favor of herbal remedies, the patients will be harmed.

benguy · Answer

Doctor: While a few alternative medicines have dangerous side effects, some, such as many herbs, have been proven safe to consume. Thus, though there is little firm evidence of medicinal effect, advocates of these herbs as remedies for serious illnesses should always be allowed to prescribe them, since their patients will not be harmed, and might be helped, by the use of these products.

Which one of the following, if true,  most seriously weakens  the doctor's argument?
 we need to find the one that most weaken the argument

1.Many practitioners and patients neglect more effective conventional medicines in favor of herbal remedies.
 the argument is that since the patients will not be harmed, it might be helped. This one, if true, somewhat weakens the argument, but it does not prove that the conclusion is flaw as it cannot show that herbal will not help

2.Many herbal remedies are marketed with claims of proven effectiveness when in fact their effectiveness is unproven.
 this is cited in the argument and cannot weaken the argument

3.Some patients may have allergic reactions to certain medicines that have been tolerated by other patients.
 this does not specific point out that herbs might not help as in the argument's conclusion

4.The vast majority of purveyors of alternative medicines are driven as much by the profit motive as by a regard for their patients' health.
 out of scope

5.Any pain relief or other benefits of many herbs have been proven to derive entirely from patients' belief in the remedy, rather than from its biochemical properties.
 correct. It, if true, directly, and specifically, point out that the conclusion that the herbs, though proved to be safe, might be help is not true. So this is the best

benguy · Answer

the conclusion is limited in the scope that, herbs prescribing  should always be allowed as it might be help . The conclusion does  not  state that herbs should always be  used . 
The fact that the patients may neglect other more effective conventional medicines CANNOT rule out the conclusion that herbs prescribing should be always allowed. The one that most weaken the conclusion should be the one that argues that herbs could not be of any help, and therefore, should not be always allowed

ssriva2 · Answer

I realize that both A and C are contenders but how to eliminate C?
Also,in conclusion the stimulus talks only about how people will be harmed.
Thus,I feel C is more appropriate.

cledgard · Answer

The argument itself states: " some, such as many herbs, have been proven safe to consume. " If the herbs are safe, that means that  they cause no harm , even if they cause allergic reactions. Therefore,  C does not weaken the argument.

In A, patients will be harmed,  because they will not use more effective conventional medicines, so they will keep seriously ill.

LordStark · Answer

close call between A and E. Request expert reply on this.  GMATNinja   VeritasKarishma

VeritasPrepBrian · Answer

Good question. The key for choice (A) being correct - as is generally the case - is the specificity of the conclusion and the main premise:

Advocates should always be allowed to prescribe herbal alternative remedies (because patients might be helped, and won't be harmed,  by the use of these products )

Note how specifically that bolded portion is drawn: people won't be harmed specifically by the use of the herbal remedies. But what if there's harm that comes from elsewhere. (A) points that out - the harm isn't from using the herbal remedies themselves, it's from the "opportunity cost" of using more effective medical remedies. The herbal remedy won't likely hurt you...but using it and not taking actual medicine might give your ailment more time to become much more severe while you're essentially doing nothing to fight it.

To me that all comes down to how specifically drawn that premise is in the last sentence: you won't be harmed from the direct use of the herbal remedy...but that doesn't mean that harm won't come from making that decision.

With (E) - note that it doesn't do anything to introduce any negative side effect. It just says that the benefit isn't medical, it's psychological...but it still allows for there to be a benefit. To weaken the conclusion we need there to be some kind of harm...the conclusion is trying to say "you should always be allowed to prescribe these, because even if they're unlikely to work they don't do any damage." (E) still allows for some probability that the herbal remedies will work, and it certainly doesn't create any fear of them doing anything negative. It just attributes the minimal usefulness of the remedies to one cause versus another.

Crytiocanalyst · Answer

(A) Many practitioners and patients neglect more effective conventional medicines in favor of herbal remedies.
Yes this seriously weakens the argument let us hang on to it

B) Many herbal remedies are marketed with claims of proven effectiveness when in fact their effectiveness is unproven.
This fits with the doctors claim that herbs are pretty much ineffective

C) Some patients may have allergic reactions to certain medicines that have been tolerated by other patients.
This also fits in with intial assertiveness of the doctor that alternative medicines has side effcts these may be caused by the allergies inflicted on some patients

D) The vast majority of purveyors of alternative medicines are driven as much by the profit motive as by a regard for their patients' health.
This can be the case and this doesn't affect the argument in question these can be deemed as out of scope material

E) Any pain relief or other benefits of many herbs have been proven to derive entirely from patients' belief in the remedy, rather than from its biochemical properties.
Yes this also perfectly fits in line with the doctors argument 
Hence IMO A

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.

Doctor: While a few alternative medicines have dangerous

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

Doctor: While a few alternative medicines have dangerous

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