The traditional treatment of strep infections has been a seven-day course of antibiotics, either penicillin or erythromycin. However, since many...
GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions
The traditional treatment of strep infections has been a seven-day course of antibiotics, either penicillin or erythromycin. However, since many patients stop taking those drugs within three days, reinfection is common in cases where those drugs are prescribed. A new antibiotic requires only a three-day course of treatment. Therefore, reinfection will probably be less common in cases where the new antibiotic is prescribed than in cases where either penicillin or erythromycin is prescribed.
Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?
Passage Analysis:
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
|---|---|
| The traditional treatment of strep infections has been a seven-day course of antibiotics, either penicillin or erythromycin. |
|
| However, since many patients stop taking those drugs within three days, reinfection is common in cases where those drugs are prescribed. |
|
| A new antibiotic requires only a three-day course of treatment. |
|
| Therefore, reinfection will probably be less common in cases where the new antibiotic is prescribed than in cases where either penicillin or erythromycin is prescribed. |
|
Argument Flow:
The argument starts by describing the current treatment (7-day antibiotics), then identifies the problem (patients stop early, leading to reinfection), introduces a solution (3-day antibiotic), and concludes this will reduce reinfections.
Main Conclusion:
The new 3-day antibiotic will probably cause fewer reinfections than the traditional 7-day antibiotics (penicillin or erythromycin).
Logical Structure:
The argument links patient behavior (stopping after 3 days) to treatment outcomes (reinfection). Since the new drug matches patient behavior (3-day course), the author concludes it will be more effective at preventing reinfection.
Prethinking:
Question type:
Strengthen - We need to find information that makes the conclusion more believable. The conclusion is that the new 3-day antibiotic will cause fewer reinfections than the traditional 7-day antibiotics.
Precision of Claims
The argument makes specific claims about treatment duration (7 days vs 3 days), patient behavior (stopping after 3 days), and comparative outcomes (fewer reinfections with new drug). We need to be precise about what causes reinfection and what makes treatments effective.
Strategy
To strengthen this argument, we need information that supports the idea that the 3-day treatment will actually work better. The argument assumes that matching treatment length to patient behavior will solve the problem, but we need to confirm that 3 days is actually enough to cure the infection, or that patients will actually complete the 3-day course, or that the new drug is as effective as the old ones.
This information about allergic reactions doesn't strengthen the argument about reinfection rates. If anything, it suggests a potential limitation of the new antibiotic. The argument is focused on completion rates and reinfection, not allergic reactions, so this is irrelevant to strengthening the conclusion.
Cost information doesn't help strengthen the argument about reinfection rates. While equal cost might mean the new antibiotic won't be prohibitively expensive, it doesn't address whether patients will complete the course or whether reinfections will decrease.
This tells us about the drug's effectiveness against other infections, but we need information specifically about strep infections and completion rates. Effectiveness against other bacteria doesn't necessarily strengthen the argument about strep reinfection rates.
This shows adoption by some doctors but doesn't provide evidence that reinfection rates will actually be lower. Physician behavior doesn't strengthen the logical connection between treatment duration and reinfection outcomes.
This is the correct answer because it directly strengthens the argument's core assumption. If patients typically feel fully recovered after 3 days with either type of antibiotic, this strongly supports the idea that the 3-day course will be effective and that patients will complete it. This bridges the gap in the argument by confirming that 3 days is sufficient for recovery, making it much more likely that the new antibiotic will indeed result in fewer reinfections since patients won't stop treatment early.