A new drug, taken twice daily for one month, is an effective treatment for a certain disease. The drug now...
GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions
A new drug, taken twice daily for one month, is an effective treatment for a certain disease. The drug now most commonly prescribed for the disease occasionally has serious side effects such as seizures; in field tests, the new drug's side effects, though no worse than mild nausea, turned out to be much more frequent. Nevertheless, the new drug is clearly preferable as a treatment, since ______.
Which of the following most logically completes the argument?
Passage Analysis:
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
| A new drug, taken twice daily for one month, is an effective treatment for a certain disease. |
|
| The drug now most commonly prescribed for the disease occasionally has serious side effects such as seizures |
|
| in field tests, the new drug's side effects, though no worse than mild nausea, turned out to be much more frequent |
|
| Nevertheless, the new drug is clearly preferable as a treatment, since _____ |
|
Argument Flow:
The argument starts by establishing that we have a new effective drug, then presents a comparative analysis of side effects between the new and current drugs. It shows the current drug has rare but serious side effects, while the new drug has frequent but mild side effects. Finally, it concludes the new drug is better despite seeming worse due to frequency.
Main Conclusion:
The new drug is clearly preferable as a treatment for the disease
Logical Structure:
The conclusion that the new drug is better needs support that outweighs the apparent disadvantage of more frequent side effects. The logic will likely focus on why mild but frequent side effects are actually better than rare but serious ones, or introduce additional factors that make the new drug superior.
Prethinking:
Question type:
Logically Completes - We need to find a statement that provides the missing reasoning to justify why the new drug is clearly preferable despite having more frequent side effects
Precision of Claims
Quality comparison (serious seizures vs mild nausea), frequency comparison (occasional vs much more frequent), effectiveness claim (both drugs work), preference conclusion (new drug is clearly better)
Strategy
Look for logical reasons that would make frequent mild side effects preferable to occasional serious side effects. The completion should explain why the trade-off (more frequent but milder effects) actually favors the new drug. Focus on factors like severity impact, patient safety, treatment compliance, or overall risk-benefit analysis.
'people who experience nausea are prone to discontinue use of the new drug prematurely' - This actually works against the argument's conclusion. If people stop taking the new drug because of nausea, this would make the new drug LESS preferable, not more preferable. This choice undermines rather than supports why the new drug would be clearly better.
'It is possible that the drug now most commonly prescribed has side effects that have not yet been attributed to it' - This introduces uncertainty about unknown side effects of the current drug. However, we're looking for a definitive reason why the new drug is 'clearly preferable.' A mere possibility about undiscovered side effects doesn't provide strong enough justification for such a confident conclusion.
'other drugs for the disease have typically been prescribed only for patients allergic to the most commonly prescribed drug' - This tells us about prescribing patterns for other drugs but doesn't explain why the new drug with frequent mild side effects would be better than the current drug with occasional serious side effects. This choice is irrelevant to the comparison being made.
'people who have received effective treatment for disease do not generally contract the disease again' - This applies equally to both the current and new drugs since both are described as effective treatments. This doesn't give us any reason to prefer one over the other, so it doesn't fill the logical gap.
'there is a nonprescription medication that when taken with the new drug prevents the onset of nausea' - This is the perfect logical completion. If the frequent mild nausea (the new drug's main drawback) can be easily prevented with an over-the-counter medication, then we eliminate the new drug's primary disadvantage. We'd have a drug that's effective, avoids serious side effects like seizures, AND doesn't cause nausea when properly managed. This clearly makes it preferable to a drug with occasional serious side effects.