The proposal to extend clinical trials, which are routinely used as systematic tests of pharmaceutical innovations, to new surgical procedures should not be implemented. The point is that surgical procedures differ in one important respect from medicinal drugs: a correctly prescribed drug depends for its effectiveness only on the drug's composition, whereas the effectiveness of even the most appropriate surgical procedure is transparently related to the skills of the surgeon who uses it.
The reasoning in the argument is flawed because the argument
(A) does not consider that new surgical procedures might be found to be intrinsically more harmful than the best treatment previously available
(B) ignores the possibility that the challenged proposal is deliberately crude in a way designed to elicit criticism to be used in relining the proposal
(C) assumes that a surgeon's skills remain unchanged throughout the surgeon's professional life
(D) describes a dissimilarity without citing any scientific evidence for the existence of that dissimilarity
(E) rejects a proposal presumably advanced in good faith without acknowledging any such good faith .
5-Day Free Trial
5-day free, full-access trial TTP
Available with Beat the GMAT members only code
MORE DETAILS
The proposal to extend clinical trials, which are routinely
This topic has expert replies
-
BTGmoderatorDC
- Moderator
- Posts: 7187
- Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 4:43 pm
- Followed by:23 members
Timer
00:00
Your Answer
A
B
C
D
E
Global Stats
-
deloitte247
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 2214
- Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 2:22 pm
- Followed by:5 members
Timer
00:00
Your Answer
A
B
C
D
E
Global Stats
Option A - INCORRECT.
This option is not in support of the argument. Apparently there might be a threat on the new surgical procedures and it is considered harmful compared to the best treatment previously available, that is why the proposal is been rejected for implementation.
Option B - INCORRECT.
Since the proposal is still under trial, then it can't be justified as a criticism neither can it be a challenge to use against surgeons.
Option C - CORRECT.
The argument is flawed by reasoning that a surgeon skills can never be changed through out the surgeons professional life. This reasoning is flawed because acquired skills is not constant, there is room for improvement of skills and diversity of acquired skills to generate more professionalism. There is room for enhancement and advancement in all ramification same implies to surgical procedures too.
Option D - INCORRECT.
The dissimilarity here is the comparison between surgical procedures and medicinal drugs, forgetting that both work interface. And this reasoning was sited without a prove.
Option E - INCORRECT.
The reasoning sited in the argument is not based on prove of occurrence but its going against a proposal base on selfless reasons.
This option is not in support of the argument. Apparently there might be a threat on the new surgical procedures and it is considered harmful compared to the best treatment previously available, that is why the proposal is been rejected for implementation.
Option B - INCORRECT.
Since the proposal is still under trial, then it can't be justified as a criticism neither can it be a challenge to use against surgeons.
Option C - CORRECT.
The argument is flawed by reasoning that a surgeon skills can never be changed through out the surgeons professional life. This reasoning is flawed because acquired skills is not constant, there is room for improvement of skills and diversity of acquired skills to generate more professionalism. There is room for enhancement and advancement in all ramification same implies to surgical procedures too.
Option D - INCORRECT.
The dissimilarity here is the comparison between surgical procedures and medicinal drugs, forgetting that both work interface. And this reasoning was sited without a prove.
Option E - INCORRECT.
The reasoning sited in the argument is not based on prove of occurrence but its going against a proposal base on selfless reasons.
