Critical Reasoning

The US and New Zealand are the only two countries where direct to consumer (DTC) advertising of prescription drugs is legal. Many research organizations and pharmaceutical industry groups contend that the ads are educational and provide consumers with important information that may benefit their health. Opponents counter that DTC drug ads are often just sales pitches which pressure doctors to provide unnecessary medications and cause patients to seek unhelpful and costly remedies. The recently published data speaks amply in favor of the latter group: the average number of prescriptions for new drugs with DTC advertising is currently nine times greater than prescriptions for new drugs without DTC ads. The claims that only the most reliable companies pursue DTC ads and therefore, this data is expected, are not rooted on facts since a number of such heavily advertised drugs have been shown to have long term safety problems.

In the argument given, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

A) The first is evidence that supports a judgment given in the argument; the second is an opinion that forms the basis of an objection to that support.
B) The first is a fact that supports the main conclusion of the argument; the second is a judgment that increases the belief in the support.
C) The first is a judgment that supports a claim that is supported by the argument; the second provides a counter-claim.
D) The first is an observation that seems to support a judgment made in the argument; the second creates doubts on a conclusion that is challenged in the argument.
E) The first is evidence that supports a conclusion which is challenged in the argument; the second provides another evidence to support that conclusion.

When one is doing a boldfaced question, often a key first step is finding the conclusion, if there is one.

Often the conclusion of a boldfaced prompt is not toward the end of the prompt but rather in the middle or even at the beginning. So in looking for the conclusion, don't fool yourself into deciding that something is the conclusion just because it lies toward the end of the prompt.

In this prompt the conclusion seems to be "The recently published data speaks amply in favor of the latter group". However, a preliminary review of the answer choices reveals the use of the word "conclusion" in some and "judgment" in others. So maybe in this case the conclusion is a little different from most prompt conclusions, and a better term to use is "judgment". Let's see.

(A) If we call the concluding statement a "judgment", this fits. The first boldfaced portion supports that judgment and the second is the basis of an objection that supposedly undermines the support.

(B) Whether we call that concluding statement a conclusion or a judgment, this is wrong, as the second boldfaced portion does not support the concluding statement. Rather it is a claim that if true would undermine what supports that statement.

(C) The first is not a judgment. Is is numerical evidence. The second is just a claim, not a counter claim.

(D) This seems to be half right, as the first does seem to support a judgment made in the argument, but the second does not help the argument challenge anything. Rather the second is a claim that has been used to in a way counter the point of the argument.

(E) This is clearly incorrect as the first does not support a conclusion challenged in the argument. It supports the conclusion judged to be correct by the argument. The second does in a way support a conclusion challenged in the argument. So the second part of this answer is to a degree correct.

The correct answer is A.

I actually spent much time understanding this sentence:The claims (that only the most reliable companies pursue DTC ads) and therefore, this data is expected, are not rooted on facts since a number of such heavily advertised drugs have been shown to have long term safety problems.

If I remove fluff, does it look like this: The claims and therefore[this idea] are not rooted on facts ?

gocoder wrote:I actually spent much time understanding this sentence:The claims (that only the most reliable companies pursue DTC ads) and therefore, this data is expected, are not rooted on facts since a number of such heavily advertised drugs have been shown to have long term safety problems.

If I remove fluff, does it look like this: The claims and therefore[this idea] are not rooted on facts ?

Perfectly reasonable to think of the main clause as "The claims are not rooted in facts." (I suspect that this isn't an official question, as that last sentence is poorly written. (First, a better construction would be "The claims that x... and that y..." Second, the "rooted on" is idiomatically incorrect. It should be "rooted in.") Just make sure you understand the logic of the argument...