Reading Comprehension

Frazier and Mosteller assert that medical research could be improved by a move toward larger, simpler clinical trials of medical treatments. Currently, researchers collect far more background information on patients than is strictly required for their trials-substantially more than hospitals collect-thereby escalating costs of data collection, storage, and analysis. Although limiting information collection could increase the risk that researchers will overlook facts relevant to a study, Frazier and Mosteller contend that such risk, never entirely eliminable from research, would still be small in most studies. Only in research on entirely new treatments are new and unexpected variables likely to arise.

Frazier and Mosteller propose not only that researchers limit data collection on individual patients but also that researchers enroll more patients in clinical trials, thereby obtaining a more representative sample of the total population with the disease under study. Often researchers restrict study participation to patients who have no ailments besides those being studied. A treatment judged successful under these ideal conditions can then be evaluated under normal conditions. Broadening the range of trial participants, Frazier and Mosteller suggest, would enable researchers to evaluate a treatment's efficacy for diverse patients under various conditions and to evaluate its effectiveness for different patient subgroups. For example, the value of a treatment for a progressive disease may vary according to a patient's stage of disease. Patients' ages may also affect a treatment's efficacy.

Question:

According to the passage, Frazier and Mosteller believe which of the following about medical research?
A. It is seriously flawed as presently conducted because researchers overlook facts that are relevant to the subject of their research.
B. It tends to benefit certain subgroups of patients disproportionately.
C. It routinely reveals new variables in research on entirely new treatments.
D. It can be made more accurate by limiting the amount of information researchers collect.
E. It cannot be freed of the risk that significant variables may be overlooked.

[spoiler]OA: E[/spoiler]

Why not D?

Thanks.

Akash,

Its never mentioned in the passage that MR can be made accurate by limiting info.

1.MR could be improved by a move to larger,simpler clincial trials.

2.Currently researchers collect more background info than required.

3.Limiting info can increase the risk of overlloking the facts but that risk(not eliminated from research) is small factor.

4.Only in new treatments unxpected variables arise.

From this you can see frazier and mosteller suggest alternative method of collecting limiting info.But do they assert this is an accurate method?No this is an broad statement.

Although limiting information collection could increase the risk that researchers will overlook facts relevant to a study, Frazier and Mosteller contend that such risk, never entirely eliminable from research, would still be small in most studies. Only in research on entirely new treatments are new and unexpected variables likely to arise.


Even tough the risk is a small factor it cannot be entirely eliminated from research.

So MR cannot be freed of the risk that variables may be overlooked.

Pick E

selango wrote:Akash,

Its never mentioned in the passage that MR can be made accurate by limiting info.

1.MR could be improved by a move to larger,simpler clincial trials.

2.Currently researchers collect more background info than required.

3.Limiting info can increase the risk of overlloking the facts but that risk(not eliminated from research) is small factor.

4.Only in new treatments unxpected variables arise.

From this you can see frazier and mosteller suggest alternative method of collecting limiting info.But do they assert this is an accurate method?No this is an broad statement.

Although limiting information collection could increase the risk that researchers will overlook facts relevant to a study, Frazier and Mosteller contend that such risk, never entirely eliminable from research, would still be small in most studies. Only in research on entirely new treatments are new and unexpected variables likely to arise.


Even tough the risk is a small factor it cannot be entirely eliminated from research.

So MR cannot be freed of the risk that variables may be overlooked.

Pick E

Thanks.

Good analysis. I have overlooked that line. I should pay more attention on every word.
Thanks.

gmat_perfect wrote:Frazier and Mosteller assert that medical research could be improved by a move toward larger, simpler clinical trials of medical treatments. Currently, researchers collect far more background information on patients than is strictly required for their trials-substantially more than hospitals collect-thereby escalating costs of data collection, storage, and analysis. Although limiting information collection could increase the risk that researchers will overlook facts relevant to a study, Frazier and Mosteller contend that such risk, never entirely eliminable from research, would still be small in most studies. Only in research on entirely new treatments are new and unexpected variables likely to arise.

Frazier and Mosteller propose not only that researchers limit data collection on individual patients but also that researchers enroll more patients in clinical trials, thereby obtaining a more representative sample of the total population with the disease under study. Often researchers restrict study participation to patients who have no ailments besides those being studied. A treatment judged successful under these ideal conditions can then be evaluated under normal conditions. Broadening the range of trial participants, Frazier and Mosteller suggest, would enable researchers to evaluate a treatment's efficacy for diverse patients under various conditions and to evaluate its effectiveness for different patient subgroups. For example, the value of a treatment for a progressive disease may vary according to a patient's stage of disease. Patients' ages may also affect a treatment's efficacy.

Question:

According to the passage, Frazier and Mosteller believe which of the following about medical research?
A. It is seriously flawed as presently conducted because researchers overlook facts that are relevant to the subject of their research.
B. It tends to benefit certain subgroups of patients disproportionately.
C. It routinely reveals new variables in research on entirely new treatments.
D. It can be made more accurate by limiting the amount of information researchers collect.
E. It cannot be freed of the risk that significant variables may be overlooked.

[spoiler]OA: E[/spoiler]

Why not D?

Thanks.

Keyword to reject D: "accurate" never mention.

One of the Trick GMAC plays with non-native speaker is adding high vocab words, eliminable in this case, which we ignore or infer to some extent from the passage.

It is often said to go refer back passage for any tentative information. By referring again, if you find such word or feel test maker has used some hidden words i.e. words many will ignore or look causally, Most probably thats going to be the answer.

One eg of such strategy is OG passage: https://www.beatthegmat.com/modern-multi ... 52411.html

"Their top managers were typically owners with a substantial minority share, whereas senior managers' holdings in modern multinationals are usually insignificant"

First Ä° also thought about E, but the words "significant variables" made me confused. we do not have such an assumption in a text.