CR Question

[kopparapui]

Thousands who suffer heart attacks each year die before reaching a hospital or clinic where they can benefit from the drugs that dissolve clots in coronary arteries. The Food and Drug Administration recently approved a new blood clot dissolving agent, which a spokesman claimed could save the lives of many people who would otherwise join this group of heart attack victims.

I dont have the answer. My choice is D. Please discuss and confirm the right choice

Which of the following, if true, would seriously weaken the argument above?

(A) The new agent must be administered by a team of doctors in a hospital or clinic setting.
(B) Many heart attack victims die unnecessarily even though they reach a hospital or clinic in time
(C) The new agent can be effectively administered prior to the victim's arrival at a hospital or clinic
(D) The Food and Drug Administration has already approved agents that are at least as effective as the new drug in dissolving blood clots
(E) The new blood clot dissolving agent causes kidney damage and irregular heart rates in some patients.

[ColumbiaVC]

A

[badpoem]

Thousands who suffer heart attacks each year die before reaching a hospital or clinic where they can benefit from the drugs that dissolve clots in coronary arteries. The Food and Drug Administration recently approved a new blood clot dissolving agent, which a spokesman claimed could save the lives of many people who would otherwise join this group of heart attack victims.

I dont have the answer. My choice is D. Please discuss and confirm the right choice

Which of the following, if true, would seriously weaken the argument above?

The argument states that a new drug that can save the lives of many people suffering from heart attacks before they reach the hospital, has been prepared. It assumes that the drug can be administered by any one before the patient reaches the hospital.

(A) The new agent must be administered by a team of doctors in a hospital or clinic setting. --> Targets the potential assumption. Weakens.

(B) Many heart attack victims die unnecessarily even though they reach a hospital or clinic in time --> Strengthens. If heart attack victims die before they reach a hospital, then this should be a good idea.

(C) The new agent can be effectively administered prior to the victim's arrival at a hospital or clinic --> Strengthens by stating the assumption. Opposite of A.

(D) The Food and Drug Administration has already approved agents that are at least as effective as the new drug in dissolving blood clots. --> Irrelevant. The argument is about the new agent only.

(E) The new blood clot dissolving agent causes kidney damage and irregular heart rates in some patients. --> Irrelevant. The argument is about heart attacks only

[Gavan]

IMO D

some drugs like new one are already available, so new drug is not making sitiation better. New drug has to be better than all the other drug of same kind => D, in its current form, is weeking the arg.

[tuanquang269]

Thousands who suffer heart attacks each year die before reaching a hospital or clinic where they can benefit from the drugs that dissolve clots in coronary arteries.

The Food and Drug Administration recently approved a new blood clot dissolving agent, which a spokesman claimed could save the lives of many people who would otherwise join this group of heart attack victims.

Which of the following, if true, would seriously weaken the argument above?

(A) The new agent must be administered by a team of doctors in a hospital or clinic setting. => MUST BE is the keywords in this choice. The patient must be brought to the hospital to ask the doctor whether this drug can be used. So, the situation is not changed compare to the time before the drug was discovered. So, this is weaken choice.

(D) The Food and Drug Administration has already approved agents that are at least as effective as the new drug in dissolving blood clots => This is out of scope. We are talking only about new drug. Not others. If we talk about other ones. The argument still stands because the new drug is still effective.

[David@VeritasPrep]

OA is A.

I found this one in a couple of other places and that answer is indeed A. The reason that it is A is as mentioned above by "badpoem": The conclusion is that the new blood clot dissolving agent "could save the lives of many people who would otherwise join this group of heart attack victims." Now what does it mean to "join this group of ... victims"? It means to die before reaching the hospital where the medication is.

So how would the new drug help these people? Only if it could work before getting to the hospital. It does not matter how effective it is if administered at the hospital because of the words "join this group of...victims." This why choice A is the correct answer. Choice D is not because it is not the overall effectiveness that matters but the time it is administered (before arriving at the hospital).

Just one thought about something that might help you on this question. Answer choice C is exactly the opposite of what we are looking for "(C) The new agent can be effectively administered prior to the victim's arrival at a hospital or clinic" Do you see that this is what would be a near-perfect answer strengthener? Maybe when you read this you could recognize that this is the premise the argument is missing - this is the answer to an ASSUMPTION question. And that might help you to see that choice A is the opposite of this and pulls the rug out from under the argument so that it falls flat.

[[email protected]]

Thousands who suffer heart attacks each year die before reaching a hospital or clinic where they can benefit from the drugs that dissolve clots in coronary arteries. The Food and Drug Administration recently approved a new blood clot dissolving agent, which a spokesman claimed could save the lives of many people who would otherwise join this group of heart attack victims.

I dont have the answer. My choice is D. Please discuss and confirm the right choice

Which of the following, if true, would seriously weaken the argument above?

(A) The new agent must be administered by a team of doctors in a hospital or clinic setting.
(B) Many heart attack victims die unnecessarily even though they reach a hospital or clinic in time
(C) The new agent can be effectively administered prior to the victim's arrival at a hospital or clinic
(D) The Food and Drug Administration has already approved agents that are at least as effective as the new drug in dissolving blood clots
(E) The new blood clot dissolving agent causes kidney damage and irregular heart rates in some patients.




The OA is A definitely. still the argument was close between the options A and D.

D says that the Food and Drug administration has already approved agents that can dissolve blood clots, but the stimulus says that still the people dying on the way or the people have to reach the hospitals.

That means that the question is not of the effectiveness of the medicine but the question is about the time in the whole process......

Hence the correct answer is A which actually says that the new drug needs administration in the hospital...

OA A

Hope this helped!!!!!