Critical Reasoning

1.While price supports for dairy products will save jobs in the dairy industry, they will also endanger jobs in other food industries. Because price supports will make dairy products more expensive, families will spend a greater portion of their food budgets on dairy products.

The author's argument depends on which of the following premises?

Most consumers would not prefer lower-priced dairy products to other lower-priced food items.
If dairy price supports are implemented, there will be an increase in the number of jobs in the dairy industry.

Consumers would spend more money on other types of food if there were no dairy price supports.

If price supports for other food products were implemented, sales of those products would decline.

The quantity of dairy products sold will decrease if price supports are implemented.


2.Pharmaceutical companies typically charge slightly inflated prices for drugs that have a large customer base and are heavily prescribed by doctors to balance the losses such companies experience from producing "orphan" drugs, drugs that are used by so few patients that they can never be profitable. New federal regulations require pharmaceutical companies to limit the price they charge for any drug to cost plus a predetermined percentage profit.

If the statements above are true, which of the following must also be true?


New pharmaceutical technology has made advances possible; the drugs produced by such technology, however, are too expensive for all but the most wealthy patients.

If pharmaceutical companies do not find another source of income to balance the losses they experience in producing "orphan" drugs, such companies will no longer be able to produce such drugs without compromising overall profits.

Some patients already request generic pharmaceuticals, when they are available, because they are typically less expensive than name-brand pharmaceuticals.

If pharmaceutical companies reduce the costs of producing most drugs, they will be able to earn more profits despite the new law, and thus will be able to balance the losses they experience from the production of "orphan" drugs.

Even though charitable organizations that fund research into the rare diseases treated by "orphan" drugs provide some donations to offset the costs of "orphan" drugs, such donations are declining.


3.As more and more women develop breast cancer, the disease is given more media coverage, which will lead to increased funding for breast cancer research.

Which of the following, if true, offers the LEAST support to the argument above?


Although some breast cancer cases may be inherited, the primary cause of the increased number of cases may prove to be environmental.

In the past five years, several famous women have been stricken with breast cancer and given numerous interviews on the subject.

When a cause receives increased media coverage, philanthropic foundations tend to give that cause added financial support.

As long as a disease is unpublicized, it is unlikely to attract either researchers or funding for research.

In recent years, breast cancer has stricken more women than has any other type of cancer, or even any other disease.

IMO -

1 - Consumers would spend more money on other types of food if there were no dairy price supports. (C)

2 - If pharmaceutical companies do not find another source of income to balance the losses they experience in producing "orphan" drugs, such companies will no longer be able to produce such drugs without compromising overall profits. (B)

3 - Although some breast cancer cases may be inherited, the primary cause of the increased number of cases may prove to be environmental. (A)

OAs please?

Where did u get this question ?

1)A
2)B
3)A Not Sure

i know the answers but seek the explanation as why these choices please....

ruplun wrote:i know the answers but seek the explanation as why these choices please....

Ya But theres a point explaining the answers only if they r correct . wats the OA

1 C Negate this , it certainly weakens the argument.
2 B
3 confused between A and E , will go with E (For no special reason, both seem irrelevant)

sandy217 wrote:1 C Negate this , it certainly weakens the argument.

We are not concerned with what happens when the price supports are not provided.

mundasingh123 wrote:

sandy217 wrote:1 C Negate this , it certainly weakens the argument.

We are not concerned with what happens when the price supports are not provided.

Thread for 1st question
https://gmatclub.com/forum/zumit-cr-69849.html

OA is C

sandy217 wrote:

mundasingh123 wrote:

sandy217 wrote:1 C Negate this , it certainly weakens the argument.

We are not concerned with what happens when the price supports are not provided.

Thread for 1st question
https://gmatclub.com/forum/zumit-cr-69849.html

OA is C

Nice what if u negate A here

Whats the OA to the rest ?

IMO C for 1st question

EXPLANATION:

If X -> Y, then its true to say

Y (NOT) -> X (NOT)

X = dairy price supports
Y = consumer not spend more money on other food products

applying, Y (NOT) -> X (NOT)

Y (NOT)consumer would spend more money on other types of food (X NOT) if there were no dairy
price supports.

Hence Op C

Q2:

Premises:
1) pharma companies lose moneyh on "orphan drugs"
2) they offset the losses by overchargin for common chemicals - think paracetamol.
3) The government is going to stop this overcharging

Form your own conclusion before going to the answer choices: the only conclusion you can really reach here is that pharma companies will see their profits damaged, unless something changes from the above.

B says exactly that - if the pharma companies do not find other sources of profit, and still continue to produce unprofitable orphan drugs, they will see lower profits than they do today.

Geva@MasterGMAT wrote:Q2:

Premises:
1) pharma companies lose moneyh on "orphan drugs"
2) they offset the losses by overchargin for common chemicals - think paracetamol.
3) The government is going to stop this overcharging

Form your own conclusion before going to the answer choices: the only conclusion you can really reach here is that pharma companies will see their profits damaged, unless something changes from the above.

B says exactly that - if the pharma companies do not find other sources of profit, and still continue to produce unprofitable orphan drugs, they will see lower profits than they do today.

hi geva can u share your insight on q1 and q3

Q1 has been discussed at length, and I agree that the answer is C. The premise is that if dairy products remain expensive, families will devote a greater portion of their budget on dairy products. This alone is not enough to make the leap to the conclusion that this will hurt other industries. The missing step (the assumption that bridges between the premise and the conclusion) is that the budget is "fixed", and one product (i.e. dairy) comes at the expense of others, which will explain why the other industries will be hurt.