A new medication for migraine seems effective

Expert replies

BTGmoderatorDC: Moderator; Posts: 7187; Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 4:43 pmFollowed by: 23 members

by BTGmoderatorDC » Thu Jan 18, 2018 10:10 pm

A new medication for migraine seems effective, but there is concern that the medication might exacerbate heart disease. If patients with heart disease take the medication under careful medical supervision, however, harmful side effects can definitely be averted. The concern about those side effects is thus unfounded.

The argument depends on which one of the following assumptions?

(A) The new medication actually is effective when taken by patients with heart disease.

(B) No migraine sufferers with heart disease will take the new medication except under careful medical supervision.

(C) Most migraine sufferers who have taken the new medication in trials also had heart disease.

(D) The new medication has various other side effects, but none as serious as that of exacerbating heart disease.

(E) The new medication will displace all migraine medications currently being used.

What is wrong with Option C?

OA B

Source: Beat The GMAT — Critical Reasoning | Thu Jan 18, 2018 10:10 pm

elias.latour.apex: Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts; Posts: 228; Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2017 1:02 amFollowed by: 3 members; Location: Global; Thanked: 32 times; GMAT Score:770

by elias.latour.apex » Fri Jan 19, 2018 5:37 pm

Another LSAT question -- you seem to love them. Have you ever considered asking GMAT questions in the GMAT forum? Just curious.

What's the conclusion of the argument? It is: The concern about [the medication's] side effects is unfounded.

Why? Because harmful side effects can be averted PROVIDED patients with heart disease take the medication under careful medical supervision.

The assumption is, therefore, that patients with heart disease will take the medication under careful medical supervision. This is answer choice (B).

What's wrong with (C) you ask? Well, it fails the two basic tests for assumption questions:

1) It doesn't answer the question Why?
2) If negated, it doesn't kill the argument.

The concern about [the medication's] side effects is unfounded. Why? Because most migraine sufferers who have taken the new medication in trials also had heart disease.
Does that answer make sense? Does the fact that most migraine sufferers who have taken the medication in trials had heart disease mean necessarily mean that the concern about side effects is unfounded? No, it certainly does not.

What about if it is negated? What if we say: Few migraine sufferers who have taken the new medication in trials also had heart disease. Does that disprove the statement "The concern about [the medication's] side effects is unfounded."? No, it does not.

Accordingly, (C) cannot be the credited response.

Elias Latour
Verbal Specialist @ ApexGMAT
blog.apexgmat.com
+1 (646) 736-7622

GMAT Course Reviews

563 reviews

1168 reviews

431 reviews

359 reviews

147 reviews

5/5

5 Star (563 Reviews)

"Target Test Prep is the closest to the official version of the GMAT exam, about 99% accuracy in terms of the quality and quantity of information. The course has excellently created singular sets of focused lessons and tests for every possible topic that one could come across in the official GMAT exam."

"The TTP course maximizes the efficiency of the time you spend studying. It will take time and effort but I could almost guarantee that if you complete the course exactly as it is laid out you will get an amazing score. They also have a very responsive team willing to help with any questions you might have."

"TTP has two things that I think no other test prep company offers: A teaching approach that reinforces understanding and an attitude that will give you the mental preparedness needed to succeed on the test. TTP gives you a deep understanding of the concept you need to know while teaching you how to think."

Write a Review