Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Jun 1006:00 AM PDT
-06:15 PM PDT
Register for the GMAT Club Virtual MBA Spotlight Fair – the world’s premier event for serious MBA candidates. This is your chance to hear directly from Admissions Directors at nearly every Top 30 MBA program..
Updated on: 26 May 2026, 09:59
Originally posted by Sajjad1994 on 26 Jul 2021, 21:00.
Last edited by Bunuel on 26 May 2026, 09:59, edited 3 times in total.
Last edited by Bunuel on 26 May 2026, 09:59, edited 3 times in total.
Moved to new forum
Kudos
Bookmarks
Pharmacist: Certirizine in both compounded and non-compounded forms has unknown long-term side effects.
Patient: The pharmacist can assess known risks depending on patient profiles, but cannot do so with unknown risks.
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
75%
(hard)
Question Stats:
66% (02:40) correct
34%
(02:53)
wrong
based on 732
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Pharmacist: Certirizine, available either as a compounded or non-compounded medication, has been shown to be effective as an allergy medicine in a wide population of patients as a compounded medication. Because compounded forms of certrizine have unknown long-term side effects, I advise patients to go back to their doctors before I fill a compound prescription such as this to see if there are any non-compounded alternatives. I do this to minimize health risks to the patient.
Patient: That is contradictory to your usual behavior, given my long history in coming to this pharmacy. I've had several compounded prescriptions filled here before and you've never asked me to go back to my doctor. There must be another reason for your reluctance to fill this prescription.
Identify the statement that would most weaken the pharmacist's argument and the statement that would most weaken the patient's argument.
Patient: That is contradictory to your usual behavior, given my long history in coming to this pharmacy. I've had several compounded prescriptions filled here before and you've never asked me to go back to my doctor. There must be another reason for your reluctance to fill this prescription.
Identify the statement that would most weaken the pharmacist's argument and the statement that would most weaken the patient's argument.
Archived Topic
Hi there,
This topic has been closed and archived due to inactivity or violation of community quality standards. No more replies are possible here.
Where to now? Join ongoing discussions on thousands of quality questions in our Two-part Analysis (TPA) Forum
Still interested in this question? Check out the "Best Topics" block below for a better discussion on this exact question, as well as several more related questions.
Thank you for understanding, and happy exploring!
| Pharmacist | Patient | |
| Allergies, if left untreated, can lead to serious medical problems. | ||
| Certirizine in both compounded and non-compounded forms has unknown long-term side effects. | ||
| The pharmacist does not believe that the studies conducted on certirizine are well substantiated. | ||
| The side effects of most allergy medicines take at least two years to appear. | ||
| The pharmacist can assess known risks depending on patient profiles, but cannot do so with unknown risks. |
ShowHide Answer
Official Answer
Pharmacist: Certirizine in both compounded and non-compounded forms has unknown long-term side effects.
Patient: The pharmacist can assess known risks depending on patient profiles, but cannot do so with unknown risks.
26 Aug 2021, 09:07
Kudos
Bookmarks
Official Explanation
Weaken the pharmacist's argument
Since this is a weaken question, you'll want to identify the conclusion and the premise of this argument, and then weaken the link between them.
Conclusion: The pharmacist argues that he asks patients to revisit their doctors before prescribing compounded Certirizine to those patients in order to determine whether there may be any non-compounded alternatives.
Premises: The pharmacist does this because of unknown side effects associated with the compounded drug, as well as his desire to minimize health risks to the patient.
The assumption here is that the non-compounded alternatives have no such risk to patient health.
Answer choice (A) about allergies possibly leading to serious medical problems if left untreated does nothing to weaken this argument. While it may be the case that the delay in patient's receiving treatment could lead to problems, this answer choice doesn't weaken the connection between what the pharmacist does and his stated reasons for doing so. That connection is what you're actually trying to weaken in a weaken argument, not the conclusion itself, as this answer choice does.
Answer choice (B) about the drug's having unknown side effects in both compounded and non-compounded forms does weaken the argument. Since the pharmacist bases his recommendation about compounded Certirizine on the fact that there are unknown side effects, it would make no sense for the doctor not to make a similar recommendation for non-compunded Certirizine if in fact that form of the drug also has unknown side effects. This answer choice therefore weakens the pharmacist's argument and is the correct answer.
Answer choice (C) about the pharmacist's belief that the drug studies being not well-substantiated, does nothing to weaken this argument. Whether the studies are well-substantiated or not is outside the scope of the argument.
Answer choice (D) about the side effects of most medicines, is also outside the scope of the argument. You're not concerned with most medicines, only this one. And you have no information to determine whether this medicine is or isn't part of the "most" medicines with side effects not necessarily appearing for two years.
Answer choice (E) strengthens, not weakens the pharmacist's argument. The fact that the pharmacist can assess known risks, but not unknown risks, makes him more likely to refer patients to other doctors when prescribing this drug, which has unknown risks.
The correct answer is (B).
Weaken the patient's argument
Since this is a weaken question, you'll want to identify the conclusion and the premise of this argument, and then weaken the link between them.
Conclusion: The patient argues that there must be some other reason than unknown side effects that the pharmacist is asking him to see his own doctor before receiving a prescription for compounded Certirizine.
Premises: The patient makes this conclusion based on the fact that he has received prescriptions for compounded medicines previously and has never had to revisit his doctor before.
The assumption here is that this medicine is analogous to those other medicines. So to weaken this analogy, you're looking for the answer choice that indicates that this medicine is NOT similar to previous medicines.
Answer choice (A) about allergies possibly leading to serious medical problems if left untreated does nothing to weaken this argument, as it does not address the illogical connection between previous medicines and this one.
Answer choice (B) about the drug's having unknown side effects in both compounded and non-compounded forms does not weaken the argument, as it does not address the illogical connection between previous medicines and this one.
Answer choice (C) about the pharmacist's belief that the drug studies being not well-substantiated, does nothing to weaken this argument. Whether the studies are well-substantiated or not is outside the scope of the argument.
Answer choice (D) about the side effects of most medicines, is also outside the scope of the argument. You're not concerned with most medicines, only this one. And it does not address the illogical connection between previous medicines and this one..
Answer choice (E) weakens the patient's argument by describing a possible dissimilarity between this drug and other drugs. Perhaps all previous prescriptions of this patient were filled with drugs with known side effects. In this case, the patient's assertion that there is "some other reason" is weakened.
The correct answer is (E).
Weaken the pharmacist's argument
Since this is a weaken question, you'll want to identify the conclusion and the premise of this argument, and then weaken the link between them.
Conclusion: The pharmacist argues that he asks patients to revisit their doctors before prescribing compounded Certirizine to those patients in order to determine whether there may be any non-compounded alternatives.
Premises: The pharmacist does this because of unknown side effects associated with the compounded drug, as well as his desire to minimize health risks to the patient.
The assumption here is that the non-compounded alternatives have no such risk to patient health.
Answer choice (A) about allergies possibly leading to serious medical problems if left untreated does nothing to weaken this argument. While it may be the case that the delay in patient's receiving treatment could lead to problems, this answer choice doesn't weaken the connection between what the pharmacist does and his stated reasons for doing so. That connection is what you're actually trying to weaken in a weaken argument, not the conclusion itself, as this answer choice does.
Answer choice (B) about the drug's having unknown side effects in both compounded and non-compounded forms does weaken the argument. Since the pharmacist bases his recommendation about compounded Certirizine on the fact that there are unknown side effects, it would make no sense for the doctor not to make a similar recommendation for non-compunded Certirizine if in fact that form of the drug also has unknown side effects. This answer choice therefore weakens the pharmacist's argument and is the correct answer.
Answer choice (C) about the pharmacist's belief that the drug studies being not well-substantiated, does nothing to weaken this argument. Whether the studies are well-substantiated or not is outside the scope of the argument.
Answer choice (D) about the side effects of most medicines, is also outside the scope of the argument. You're not concerned with most medicines, only this one. And you have no information to determine whether this medicine is or isn't part of the "most" medicines with side effects not necessarily appearing for two years.
Answer choice (E) strengthens, not weakens the pharmacist's argument. The fact that the pharmacist can assess known risks, but not unknown risks, makes him more likely to refer patients to other doctors when prescribing this drug, which has unknown risks.
The correct answer is (B).
Weaken the patient's argument
Since this is a weaken question, you'll want to identify the conclusion and the premise of this argument, and then weaken the link between them.
Conclusion: The patient argues that there must be some other reason than unknown side effects that the pharmacist is asking him to see his own doctor before receiving a prescription for compounded Certirizine.
Premises: The patient makes this conclusion based on the fact that he has received prescriptions for compounded medicines previously and has never had to revisit his doctor before.
The assumption here is that this medicine is analogous to those other medicines. So to weaken this analogy, you're looking for the answer choice that indicates that this medicine is NOT similar to previous medicines.
Answer choice (A) about allergies possibly leading to serious medical problems if left untreated does nothing to weaken this argument, as it does not address the illogical connection between previous medicines and this one.
Answer choice (B) about the drug's having unknown side effects in both compounded and non-compounded forms does not weaken the argument, as it does not address the illogical connection between previous medicines and this one.
Answer choice (C) about the pharmacist's belief that the drug studies being not well-substantiated, does nothing to weaken this argument. Whether the studies are well-substantiated or not is outside the scope of the argument.
Answer choice (D) about the side effects of most medicines, is also outside the scope of the argument. You're not concerned with most medicines, only this one. And it does not address the illogical connection between previous medicines and this one..
Answer choice (E) weakens the patient's argument by describing a possible dissimilarity between this drug and other drugs. Perhaps all previous prescriptions of this patient were filled with drugs with known side effects. In this case, the patient's assertion that there is "some other reason" is weakened.
The correct answer is (E).
26 May 2026, 09:54
Kudos
Bookmarks
Not really happy with the OA. The weakener stating that the substance in question could have negative effects for both types of compounds need not be a weakener really. The stem only says that the pharmacist is looking for non-compounding alternatives only. It doesn’t really matter if the substance in check is having a side effect for non compounded types IMO.
Pharmacist could quite clearly go for other alternatives as that is all the stem states.
On the other hand other options are dubious as well. So not really sure how to interpret this problem.
Bunuel GMATNinja what is your take on this?
Pharmacist could quite clearly go for other alternatives as that is all the stem states.
On the other hand other options are dubious as well. So not really sure how to interpret this problem.
Bunuel GMATNinja what is your take on this?
Sajjad1994
