Examkin

Question

Difficulty: MediumStatement and Conclusions or Inferences

Analyze the provided statements and determine which of the conclusions can be logically deduced.

Statement 1: The statutory medical board's updated mandate prohibits physicians from prescribing a branded therapeutic drug if a bioequivalent generic alternative is currently listed in the national formulary.
Statement 2: Dr. Lin, a practicing physician under the board's jurisdiction, strictly complies with all medical board mandates without exception.
Statement 3: During a consultation this morning, Dr. Lin prescribed a branded therapeutic drug for a patient's acute allergic reaction.

Conclusion I: A bioequivalent generic alternative for the prescribed allergy medication was not listed in the national formulary this morning.
Conclusion II: The prescribed branded therapeutic drug is more effective for acute allergic reactions than any generic counterpart.

Which of the following is correct?

  1. A
    Neither Conclusion I nor Conclusion II follows
  2. Only Conclusion I followsAnswer
  3. C
    Only Conclusion II follows
  4. D
    Both Conclusion I and Conclusion II follow

Answer

Only Conclusion I follows.
The correct answer identifies that only the first conclusion is a valid deduction. Statement 1 creates a strict rule: if X (generic listed) is true, then Y (prescribing branded) cannot happen. Statement 2 ensures the rule is strictly followed. Statement 3 tells us Y (prescribing branded) did happen. By the logical law of modus tollens, if Y happened under strict adherence to the rule, X must have been false. Therefore, the generic was not listed, proving Conclusion I is perfectly true. Conclusion II is invalid because it relies on outside knowledge about drug efficacy, which is never mentioned in the text.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the conditional rule established in Statement 1.
The rule dictates: If a generic alternative is listed, a branded drug cannot be prescribed.
To establish the foundational logical premise governing the scenario.
2
Incorporate the factual evidence from Statements 2 and 3.
Dr. Lin followed the rules perfectly, yet successfully prescribed a branded therapeutic drug this morning.
To connect the theoretical rule to the real-world action taken by the subject.
3
Apply deductive reasoning to evaluate Conclusion I.
Since Dr. Lin followed the rule and prescribed the branded drug, the condition preventing its prescription (the generic being listed) must not have been true. Thus, Conclusion I perfectly aligns with the facts.
To test the first conclusion using contrapositive logic (modus tollens).
4
Evaluate Conclusion II against the provided text.
Conclusion II introduces concepts of medical effectiveness ('more effective'), which appear nowhere in the original statements.
To ensure conclusions strictly derive from the text, filtering out unwarranted external assumptions.

Key Concept

Logical Deduction (Modus Tollens) and Differentiating Inference from Assumption
Estimated Time:1m 15s
Rate this question

Topics

Statement and Conclusions or Inferences

More questions from this topic