Critical Reasoning

Public health advocate: It is generally true that medications that undergo the extensive FDA Phase III clinical safety testing are much safer than less-researched drugs. It is also true that whenever such trials are conducted, fewer people have experienced unexpected harmful side effects, thus reducing public health risks. However, eliminating the requirement that even FDA-tested medications continue to include extensive warnings about individual risk factors would almost certainly harm rather than help public health. Consumers would tend to rely on the FDA's general certification of safety, and if no longer encouraged to read about individual risks and drug interactions, many patients would suffer serious adverse reactions.

The two bolded statements serve what purpose in the context of the public health advocate's argument?

A The first is a general pattern that the advocate accepts as true; the second is said to be a natural consequence that must follow if the general pattern applies.

B The first is a causal relationship that the advocate believes will happen again in the case at issue; the second admits a situation in which the relationship
would not hold.

C The first describes a cause and effect relationship that the advocate believes will not hold in the case at issue;
the second suggests a consideration that supports that belief.

D The first is proof that the advocate uses to support a prediction; the second states that prediction.

E The first acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the stance that the advocate supports; the second is that stance.
OA C

KSHITIJ205 wrote:Public health advocate: It is generally true that medications that undergo the extensive FDA Phase III clinical safety testing are much safer than less-researched drugs. It is also true that whenever such trials are conducted, fewer people have experienced unexpected harmful side effects, thus reducing public health risks. However, eliminating the requirement that even FDA-tested medications continue to include extensive warnings about individual risk factors would almost certainly harm rather than help public health. Consumers would tend to rely on the FDA's general certification of safety, and if no longer encouraged to read about individual risks and drug interactions, many patients would suffer serious adverse reactions.

The two bolded statements serve what purpose in the context of the public health advocate's argument?

A The first is a general pattern that the advocate accepts as true; the second is said to be a natural consequence that must follow if the general pattern applies.

B The first is a causal relationship that the advocate believes will happen again in the case at issue; the second admits a situation in which the relationship
would not hold.

C The first describes a cause and effect relationship that the advocate believes will not hold in the case at issue;
the second suggests a consideration that supports that belief.

D The first is proof that the advocate uses to support a prediction; the second states that prediction.

E The first acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the stance that the advocate supports; the second is that stance.
OA C

Generally to get the right answer to a boldfaced CR question, one can simplify things by eliminating the obviously wrong answers. Then with maybe two answers left, one can figure out which is better.

Eliminating some answers can be pretty easy as generally one or both of the descriptions they contain clearly do not match the boldfaced portions.

Choice A for, for instance, can be quickly eliminated, because the description of the second boldfaced portion is clearly wrong. The second part is clearly not a consequence what's described in the first.

Choice B, can also be eliminated pretty easily. The choice is a little tempting at first, but then you realize that the two descriptions contradict each other. The author cannot both believe that the relationship will hold in the case described and admit that it will not.

C is interesting. Maybe the descriptions make sense. I am not sure that I really like C, but ok the author is saying that in a situation without labeling public health will be harmed. So I guess maybe he is saying that the usual cause and effect of FDA trials creating safety will not hold, and the second portion could be seen to be supporting that. Let's see if there is anything better though.

Choice D is easily eliminated. The first in no way supports the second. So now we have eliminated three out of five answer choices and there are only two left to worry about. So that's good.

E is tempting too. Hmm. The first does seem to weigh against the prediction, maybe, but maybe not, and then the second might be the stance of the author. However, looking back up, I found the actual stance, i.e. the conclusion. It's this, "eliminating the requirement that even FDA-tested medications continue to include extensive warnings about individual risk factors would almost certainly harm rather than help public health." So the second boldfaced portion is not the stance, it's more something that supports that stance. So that makes C look better for the second portion.

Is C the winner? We could check the first part to make sure.

I guess the first part of C is closer to what's going on than is the first part of E. I am not sure I really like the wording of C, as I don't really see a "case", though I do see an issue, but E is even worse as the first boldfaced portion does not really weigh against the thesis that lack of labeling harms public health.

So having whittled it down to two answers and having weighed the validity of those two, considering all the angles, we can choose C.

thank you, i was a little confused between E and C.. got it now. APOLOGIES for not having highlighted the boldface sections..