Assertions?

This topic has expert replies
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 377
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 10:45 am
Thanked: 10 times
Followed by:1 members

Assertions?

by imskpwr » Mon Jul 22, 2013 12:26 pm
Journalist: The FDA's new requirements for drug approval, which took effect for drugs submitted for approval this year, have already had a marked effect on the public health. The number of new drugs introduced into the market this year has decreased by sixty percent from last year. Clearly, important and necessary treatments, including a newly discovered cancer treatment, are being withheld from the sick this year.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the journalist's argument?

The time required for a drug to gain FDA approval under the old FDA standards was a minimum of three years.

The majority of drugs introduced last year were intended for use in the treatment of non-fatal illnesses.

Many legislators cite the expense of the FDA approval process as the most serious barrier to affordable health care in this country.

Many researchers tout the newly discovered cancer treatment as a possible cure for cancer.

Most drugs developed in the United States are approved for sale in Europe years before they receive approval by the FDA.
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] » Mon Jul 22, 2013 7:52 pm
Hi imskpwer,

In CR questions, it's important to be critical of ANY information that you're given. CR questions are usually pretty "thin", so you aren't given much to work with - take note of the details.

In this case, the argument is that the FDA's new requirements have effected the number of new drugs introduced to the market THIS YEAR (compared to LAST YEAR). The new requirements have supposedly reduced the number of new drugs and thus people are negatively affected.

It's interesting that the comparison is from THIS YEAR to LAST YEAR. Why did the author point that out? How will that info play a role? Since we're trying to undermine (weaken) the argument, that seems like a pretty good place to find a weakener (something involving the timeline). Since the author is blaming the FDA's requirements for the decrease in drugs (causality), we might find a weakener by finding a DIFFERENT cause for the decrease.

Answer A tells us that drug approval takes 3 years, so there might be a bunch of drugs that will hit the market, but they're awaiting approval. This gives a different reason for the decrease in the new drugs, weakens the idea that it's the FDA's new requirements AND attacks the relevance of the 1 year comparison.

Answer B talks about the intended use of the drugs. IRRELEVANT.

Answer C talks about the expense. IRRELEVANT.

Answer D talks about a possible cancer. IRRELEVANT.

Answer E talks about Europe. IRRELEVANT.

Final Answer: A

GMAT assassins aren't born, they're made,
Rich
Contact Rich at [email protected]
Image

User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 377
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 10:45 am
Thanked: 10 times
Followed by:1 members

by imskpwr » Tue Jul 23, 2013 3:46 am
[email protected] wrote:Hi imskpwer,

In CR questions, it's important to be critical of ANY information that you're given. CR questions are usually pretty "thin", so you aren't given much to work with - take note of the details.

In this case, the argument is that the FDA's new requirements have effected the number of new drugs introduced to the market THIS YEAR (compared to LAST YEAR). The new requirements have supposedly reduced the number of new drugs and thus people are negatively affected.

It's interesting that the comparison is from THIS YEAR to LAST YEAR. Why did the author point that out? How will that info play a role? Since we're trying to undermine (weaken) the argument, that seems like a pretty good place to find a weakener (something involving the timeline). Since the author is blaming the FDA's requirements for the decrease in drugs (causality), we might find a weakener by finding a DIFFERENT cause for the decrease.

Answer A tells us that drug approval takes 3 years, so there might be a bunch of drugs that will hit the market, but they're awaiting approval. This gives a different reason for the decrease in the new drugs, weakens the idea that it's the FDA's new requirements AND attacks the relevance of the 1 year comparison.

Answer B talks about the intended use of the drugs. IRRELEVANT.

Answer C talks about the expense. IRRELEVANT.

Answer D talks about a possible cancer. IRRELEVANT.

Answer E talks about Europe. IRRELEVANT.

Final Answer: A

GMAT assassins aren't born, they're made,
Rich
Please help me in identifying Premise and Conclusion here.

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] » Tue Jul 23, 2013 1:47 pm
Hi imskpwr,

The conclusion is the last sentence (the word "clearly" is a conclusion keyword): Important and necessary treatments....are being withheld from the sick THIS YEAR.

The premise There are new FDA requirements that have supposedly decreased the number of new drugs to market by 60% (compared with LAST YEAR).

The author assumes that the new requirements are keeping necessary drugs/treatments from getting to the sick and the data he uses is that there are fewer drugs/treatments this year compared to last. When an author "blames" one thing for the cause of another, the easiest way to weaken the argument is to find another (different) cause.

GMAT assassins aren't born, they're made,
Rich
Contact Rich at [email protected]
Image

User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 377
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 10:45 am
Thanked: 10 times
Followed by:1 members

by imskpwr » Wed Jul 24, 2013 2:05 am
[email protected] wrote:Hi imskpwr,

The conclusion is the last sentence (the word "clearly" is a conclusion keyword): Important and necessary treatments....are being withheld from the sick THIS YEAR.

The premise There are new FDA requirements that have supposedly decreased the number of new drugs to market by 60% (compared with LAST YEAR).
I thought that

"The FDA's new requirements for drug approval, which took effect for drugs submitted for approval this year, have already had a marked effect on the public health." is some sort of Background Information

Premise: The number of new drugs introduced into the market this year has decreased by sixty percent from last year.

Conclusion: Clearly, important and necessary treatments, including a newly discovered cancer treatment, are being withheld from the sick this year.

But as per the reasoning mentioned by you, there is a causal realtionship between FDA new requirements and decrease in the number of drugs. That is the IMPLICATION of FDA new requirements is a decrease in the number of new drugs.

Please explain such implications/assertions in detail.