Examkin

Question

Difficulty: HardEvaluate the Argument

Cardiologist: In a recent clinical trial, patients with mild hypertension who took a daily dose of compound X experienced a 10 percent greater reduction in blood pressure than patients who received a placebo. Compound X has virtually no side effects, whereas conventional blood pressure medications often cause persistent fatigue and dizziness. Therefore, to minimize patient discomfort while effectively managing their condition, doctors should prescribe compound X instead of conventional medications for patients with mild hypertension.

Which of the following would be most useful to know in order to evaluate the cardiologist's argument?

  1. Whether conventional blood pressure medications typically yield a reduction in blood pressure that is substantially greater than the reduction achieved by compound X.Answer
  2. B
    Whether patients suffering from severe hypertension would experience a similar reduction in blood pressure if they took compound X.
  3. C
    Whether the participants in the clinical trial who received the placebo were aware that they were not receiving an active medication.
  4. D
    Whether compound X is currently covered by most major health insurance plans.
  5. E
    Whether eliminating side effects like fatigue and dizziness is sufficient to guarantee that patients will strictly adhere to their medication schedule.

Answer

The option asking whether conventional medications yield a substantially greater reduction in blood pressure than compound X.
The argument concludes that compound X should replace conventional medications because it has fewer side effects and is more effective than a placebo. However, it never compares the efficacy of compound X to the efficacy of the conventional medications it is meant to replace. By asking whether conventional medications yield a substantially greater reduction in blood pressure, this option directly probes this unstated comparison. If the answer is 'yes,' the argument is severely weakened because patients would lose significant medical benefits by switching. If the answer is 'no,' the argument is strengthened.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the main conclusion of the argument.
Doctors should prescribe compound X instead of conventional medications for mild hypertension.
This is the final recommendation the cardiologist is building towards.
2
Identify the premises supporting the conclusion.
Compound X is 10 percent more effective than a placebo and has no side effects, whereas conventional medications cause fatigue and dizziness.
These are the facts provided to justify the recommendation.
3
Find the logical gap or flaw between the premises and the conclusion.
The premises compare compound X's efficacy to a placebo, but the conclusion recommends it over conventional medications. The argument assumes compound X is effective enough to replace conventional drugs without comparing their efficacies directly.
An argument cannot logically recommend replacing one treatment with another solely because the new treatment is better than nothing (a placebo) and has fewer side effects.
4
Apply the Variance Test to the answer choices to find the one that targets this gap.
Asking whether conventional medications are substantially more effective than compound X targets this exact gap. A 'Yes' weakens the argument (efficacy is sacrificed), while a 'No' strengthens it (efficacy is maintained without side effects).
The correct Evaluate the Argument answer must uniquely strengthen and weaken the conclusion when opposed polar responses are supplied.

Key Concept

Evaluate the Argument - Identifying Flawed Comparisons
Rate this question

Topics

Evaluate the Argument

More questions from this topic