Public health will improve more quickly in the wake of new medical dis

Question

Competition Mode Question

Public health will improve more quickly in the wake of new medical discoveries if medical researchers abandon their practice of waiting until their findings are published in peer-reviewed journals before informing the press of important research results. That is because the public release of new medical information allows people to use that information in order to improve their health, but the peer-review process is unavoidably very slow.

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

(A) Peer review often prevents the publication of false conclusions drawn on the basis of poorly conducted medical research.

(B) People often alter their life-styles on the basis of new medical information made available through the press.

(C) Some improvements in public health are due to factors other than the discovery of new medical information.

(D) Some newspapers would be willing to publish the results of medical research before those results have appeared in peer-reviewed journals.

(E) Most peer-reviewed scientific journals would refuse to give up the practice of peer review.

Krishh9119 · Answer

Public health will improve more quickly in the wake of new medical discoveries if medical researchers abandon their practice of waiting until their findings are published in peer-reviewed journals before informing the press of important research results. That is because the public release of new medical information allows people to use that information in order to improve their health, but the peer-review process is unavoidably very slow.

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

Question Type:  Weaken
 Conclusion: Public health will improve more quickly in the wake of new medical discoveries if medical researchers abandon their practice of waiting until their findings are published in peer-reviewed journals before informing the press of important research results.
 Premise: That is because the public release of new medical information allows people to use that information in order to improve their health, but the peer-review process is unavoidably very slow.

Pre thinking:  
To weaken the conclusion we must try to prove that:
1) There is some problem with 'informing the press ' directly without peer review or 
2) There is some advantage/benefit with peer review and then 'informing the press '.

(A) Peer review often prevents the publication of false conclusions drawn on the basis of poorly conducted medical research.   This option tells us the advantage/benefit with peer review and then 'informing the press '. 
 
(B) People often alter their life-styles on the basis of new medical information made available through the press.  Irrelevant

(C) Some improvements in public health are due to factors other than the discovery of new medical information.  Irrelevant

(D) Some newspapers would be willing to publish the results of medical research before those results have appeared in peer-reviewed journals.  Irrelevant

(E) Most peer-reviewed scientific journals would refuse to give up the practice of peer review  Irrelevant

A is our answer.

exc4libur · Answer

ARGUMENT
= ph will improve quicker if res's abandon peer rev practice
= peer rev is very slow
= if the press had results before peer rev
= then public could use those to improve their health

WEAKEN
Ans (A) without peer rev public could risk their health!

madgmat2019 · Answer

conclusion- That is because the public release of new medical information allows people to use that information in order to improve their health

(A) Peer review often prevents the publication of false conclusions drawn on the basis of poorly conducted medical research............CORRECT,,....without peer review we couldnt use the medicine, since in the peer review we could know if something is wrong in the medication.....

(B) People often alter their life-styles on the basis of new medical information made available through the press........discussion of LIFESTYLE....OUT OF CONTEXT....INCORRECT

(C) Some improvements in public health are due to factors other than the discovery of new medical information.......OUT OF SCOPE......INCORRECT

(D) Some newspapers would be willing to publish the results of medical research before those results have appeared in peer-reviewed journals........the willing of newpapers isnt weakening the conclusion.......INCORRECT

(E) Most peer-reviewed scientific journals would refuse to give up the practice of peer review............CLearly INCORRECT

OA:A

razorhell · Answer

Public health will improve more quickly in the wake of new medical discoveries if medical researchers abandon their practice of waiting until their findings are published in peer-reviewed journals before informing the press of important research results. That is because the public release of new medical information allows people to use that information in order to improve their health, but the peer-review process is unavoidably very slow.

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

ANS A ..

We need to attack the argument ..... 
The correct answer will be that the peer review is an essential part of journal publication ( i.e the validate of research)

(A) Peer review often prevents the publication of false conclusions drawn on the basis of poorly conducted medical research. 
 
(B) People often alter their life-styles on the basis of new medical information made available through the press.

(C) Some improvements in public health are due to factors other than the discovery of new medical information.

(D) Some newspapers would be willing to publish the results of medical research before those results have appeared in peer-reviewed journals.

(E) Most peer-reviewed scientific journals would refuse to give up the practice of peer review.

razorhell · Answer

Public health will improve more quickly in the wake of new medical discoveries if medical researchers abandon their practice of waiting until their findings are published in peer-reviewed journals before informing the press of important research results. That is because the public release of new medical information allows people to use that information in order to improve their health, but the peer-review process is unavoidably very slow.

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

ANS A ..

We need to attack the argument ..... 
The correct answer will be that the peer review is an essential part of journal publication ( i.e the validate of research)

(A) Peer review often prevents the publication of false conclusions drawn on the basis of poorly conducted medical research. 
 
(B) People often alter their life-styles on the basis of new medical information made available through the press.

(C) Some improvements in public health are due to factors other than the discovery of new medical information.

(D) Some newspapers would be willing to publish the results of medical research before those results have appeared in peer-reviewed journals.

(E) Most peer-reviewed scientific journals would refuse to give up the practice of peer review.

chaitralirr · Answer

Public health will improve more quickly in the wake of new medical discoveries if medical researchers abandon their practice of waiting until their findings are published in peer-reviewed journals before informing the press of important research results. That is because the public release of new medical information allows people to use that information in order to improve their health, but the peer-review process is unavoidably very slow.

Stimulus: Public health will improve more quickly in the wake of new medical discoveries if medical researchers abandon their practice of waiting until the research of peer review and directly make it available to public then public health will improve as the peer review step is slow.

The argument totally skips the part where in peer review of the journal the researchers work needs to be validated.

The argument totally skips the part where in peer review of the journal the researchers work needs to be validated. 
 
Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

(A) Peer review often prevents the publication of false conclusions drawn on the basis of poorly conducted medical research.  IMO A as the peer review avoids the false conclusions to be drawn and indirectly contribuutes to public health. which would have otherwise damaged the public

(B) People often alter their life-styles on the basis of new medical information made available through the press.  does not support the argument

(C) Some improvements in public health are due to factors other than the discovery of new medical information. irrelevant

(D) Some newspapers would be willing to publish the results of medical research before those results have appeared in peer-reviewed journals. irrelevant does not weaken the stimulus

(E) Most peer-reviewed scientific journals would refuse to give up the practice of peer review.  irrelevant does not weaken the stimulus

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.

Public health will improve more quickly in the wake of new medical dis

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

Public health will improve more quickly in the wake of new medical dis

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