It is illegal to advertise prescription medications in Hedland except directly to physicians, either by mail or in medical journals....
GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions
It is illegal to advertise prescription medications in Hedland except directly to physicians, either by mail or in medical journals. A proposed law would allow general advertising of prescription medications. Opponents object that the general population lacks the specialized knowledge to evaluate such advertisements and might ask their physicians for inappropriate medications. But since physicians have the final say as to whether to prescribe a medication for a patient, inappropriate prescriptions would not become more common.
Which of the following would it be most useful to establish in order to evaluate the argument?
Passage Analysis:
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
| It is illegal to advertise prescription medications in Hedland except directly to physicians, either by mail or in medical journals. |
|
| A proposed law would allow general advertising of prescription medications. |
|
| Opponents object that the general population lacks the specialized knowledge to evaluate such advertisements and might ask their physicians for inappropriate medications. |
|
| But since physicians have the final say as to whether to prescribe a medication for a patient, inappropriate prescriptions would not become more common. |
|
Argument Flow:
The passage starts with background info about current advertising restrictions, introduces a proposed change, presents the main objection to that change, then offers a counter-argument that dismisses the concern.
Main Conclusion:
Allowing general advertising of prescription drugs won't lead to more inappropriate prescriptions because doctors have the final decision-making power.
Logical Structure:
The argument relies on the assumption that doctors will always make good decisions regardless of patient requests. It assumes that doctor oversight completely eliminates any risk from potentially misleading public advertising.
Prethinking:
Question type:
Evaluate - We need to find what information would help us determine whether the argument's conclusion is strong or weak
Precision of Claims
The argument makes a specific claim about frequency - that inappropriate prescriptions would NOT become more common. This depends on the quality of physician decision-making when patients make requests based on general advertising.
Strategy
For evaluate questions, we need to think about assumptions the argument makes and create scenarios that would either strengthen or weaken the conclusion when we get more information. The core assumption here is that doctors will act as an effective filter against patient requests for inappropriate medications. We should look for what information would help us test whether this assumption holds up in practice.
Whether advertising might alert patients to effective treatments for minor ailments they thought were untreatable. This focuses on a potential benefit of general advertising, but our argument is specifically about whether inappropriate prescriptions would increase. Even if advertising helps some patients discover legitimate treatments, this doesn't help us evaluate whether the 'doctor filter' prevents inappropriate prescriptions from becoming more common. This is tangential to the core logic.
Whether people might visit doctors solely to request advertised medications. While this relates to increased patient requests, it doesn't directly help us evaluate the key assumption - whether doctors will resist inappropriate requests. We could have more people making requests, but if doctors consistently refuse inappropriate ones, the conclusion still holds. We need to know about doctor behavior, not just patient behavior.
Whether the proposed law requires ads to the public to match the information given to physicians. This addresses ad content and transparency, but the argument's logic doesn't depend on what information the ads contain. The argument assumes doctors will filter out inappropriate requests regardless of how much or little patients know. Information parity doesn't help us test whether the doctor filter works.
Whether prescription drug ads are currently an important information source for physicians about new medications. This deals with how the current advertising system (to doctors only) works, but we're evaluating an argument about a future system where ads go to the general public. How doctors currently get information doesn't help us assess whether they'll resist patient pressure under the new system.
Whether physicians would give in to patient demands for medications chosen by patients when original prescriptions fail. This directly tests the argument's core assumption that doctors act as an effective filter. If doctors DO give in to patient pressure (especially when their first choice doesn't work), this severely weakens the conclusion that inappropriate prescriptions won't increase. If doctors DON'T give in, this strengthens the conclusion. This information is essential for evaluating whether the 'final say' argument actually holds up in practice.