BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

help

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 74
Joined: Fri May 11, 2012 9:06 pm

help

by parulmahajan89 » Thu Nov 21, 2013 8:09 pm
The fewer restrictions there are on drug advertisements, the more drug companies there are who advertise their products. Advertised drugs generally cost less than their non-advertised equivalents. Thus, if all legal restrictions on drug advertisements, including those that prohibit the advertising of specific effects of drugs, are eliminated, overall consumer drug costs will be lower than they will be if current restrictions are retained.

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

Some drug companies that currently advertise will raise prices for some drugs if they are allowed to advertise specific effects of their products.

More consumers will use drugs if there are fewer restrictions on the advertisement of drugs.

It the restrictions against the advertising of drugs' specific effects are removed, more drug companies will advertise their products.

If more drug companies advertise low prices for their products, some drug companies that do not advertise will also charge less than they currently charge for equivalent drugs.

If the only restrictions on the advertising of drugs were those that apply to all drugs, most drug companies would advertise their products.

Is answer B?
Last edited by parulmahajan89 on Fri Nov 22, 2013 2:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
Elite Legendary Member
Posts: 10392
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2013 6:38 pm
Location: Palo Alto, CA
Thanked: 2867 times
Followed by:511 members
GMAT Score:800

by [email protected] » Thu Nov 21, 2013 11:02 pm
Hi parulmahajan89,

You'll have to include the original prompt if you'd like an explanation of the correct answer.

GMAT assassins aren't born, they're made,
Rich
Contact Rich at [email protected]
Image
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 74
Joined: Fri May 11, 2012 9:06 pm

by parulmahajan89 » Fri Nov 22, 2013 2:39 pm
Sorry about that. I have posted it again
Top
User avatar
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 77
Joined: Sun Nov 17, 2013 12:32 pm
Location: Orange, TX
Thanked: 66 times
Followed by:4 members
GMAT Score:760

by ilyana » Tue Nov 26, 2013 12:21 pm
Hello! The answer must be C, because this question is rewritten after problem 54 from OG13.
I like the original problem much more than this one.



From the posted problem:
"The fewer restrictions there are on drug advertisements, the more drug companies there are who advertise their products."

From the premise above we can infer that if some restrictions are removed, more drug companies will advertise, which is precisely the answer choice C.
Please click on "Thank" button if you think my post is helpful.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/ilyana-anderson-481846127/
Top
User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 1035
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2010 11:13 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Thanked: 474 times
Followed by:365 members

by VivianKerr » Tue Nov 26, 2013 12:54 pm
Notes:

Evidence
-Restrictions & advertising vary inversely
-Cheaper drugs advertised

Conclusion
-No restrictions = lower costs than w/current restrictions

Question Rephrase
-What has to be true for this to make sense?

Analysis

-Notice the conclusion's comparison between a hypothetical situation and the current situation. We're missing any information about the current situation.

-Since fewer restrictions = more advertising, we'd expect NO restrictions to mean TONS of advertising, and since advertised drugs cost less, we'd expect there to be LOTS of advertising for cheaper drugs. But why does that mean overall consumer drugs costs will be lower? There's a missing link here.

It must be true that "overall" costs will be lower when there is more advertising for cheaper drugs. We need a reason for this. It must be true that current restrictions mean more expensive overall costs than if there was more advertising. Anyway, this was probably too much work for this problem. The correct answer is clearly (C).

This is because it's the only choice that makes the conclusion untenable if negated. If restrictions were removed and more companies did NOT advertise, then how could costs be lower since the evidence suggests lower restrictions = MORE advertising of cheaper drugs? This statement must be correct to jibe with the evidence.
Vivian Kerr
GMAT Rockstar, Tutor
https://www.GMATrockstar.com
https://www.yelp.com/biz/gmat-rockstar-los-angeles

Former Kaplan and Grockit instructor, freelance GMAT content creator, now offering affordable, effective, Skype-tutoring for the GMAT at $150/hr. Contact: [email protected]

Thank you for all the "thanks" and "follows"! :-)
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1