PrepTest 73, Logical Reasoning 2, Question 6
Transcript
Question six, when a question asks you to evaluate or what would be most useful to know in order to evaluate the argument that isn't evaluate question. Evaluate questions are fairly rare on the outset, although they are becoming a little more common these days. They're basically halfway between a strengthen and weaken question. And what we're being asked is to find an answer choice that would be useful to know in order to figure out if the argument is good or bad.
In other words, to find something that would give us information about one of the arguments assumptions. It's a question that when answered could strengthen or weaken the argument depending on how that question is answered turns out. Of course, like always to find the assumptions you have to break to the argument down into its component parts.
Here the conclusion is found at the end. These patients should take this new drug in addition to the drug that helps preserve existing bones. The clinician's evidence starts with a description of what's going on, just a little bit of setup evidence. So patients who have immune system disorders usually are treated with some drugs that increase their risk of getting osteoporosis, which is a bone-loss disease.
And the next sentence is another piece of information about the state of things right now another piece of setup evidence. These patients take another drug that helps preserve their existing bone and then our only piece of evidence that used directly to prove the conclusion, since an evidence keyword. Since a drug that enhances the growth of new bone cells has now become available, they're at risk for bone loss.
Right now we have a drug that helps them preserve their bone. This says there's now a drug that enhances the growth of new bone. So they should take this new drug in addition to the drug that helps preserve the existing bone. That's our argument. This argument is a version of a net benefit arguments on the basis of one advantage.
Taking the extra drug is a good idea overall, which means that the argument assumes that there's no other negative factors they haven't brought up. That might argue the other way, that might argue against taking the new drug with the old drug. We don't theorize about what that could be. We just look for an answer choice that talks about something like that.
So when we go to the answer choices here. Answer choice A, how large is the class of drugs that increase the risk of developing osteoporosis? This wouldn't affect whether it's a good idea to give this new drug or not, it's just how many drugs could people take if they have an immune system disorder? How large that class is doesn't really affect anything.
So hence, choice A is not gonna help us evaluate the argument. Answer choice B, why are immune system disorders treated with drugs that increase the risk of developing osteoporosis? This is an interesting question, but we don't need to know why the drugs are used. Just, is there anything that might affect whether we should give this new drug or not?
So why are people in this problem in the first place, doesn't affect the argument. Answer choice C. Is the new drug more expensive than the drug that helps preserve existing bone? Now this one is almost right. Cost would be relevant to a new treatment. If you're saying that you should use a new drug with an old drug, you do need to believe that the drug is affordable.
If it costs $80 billion, then it wouldn't be something you could do, but this answer choice doesn't say, is the new drug prohibitively expensive, or is the new drug too expensive? Just is it more expensive than the drug that they're currently using. We're not swapping one drug for another, they're adding another drug on to the regimen.
Of course it's going to add some expense. The question would be, is it going to add enough expense to make it a bad idea? Not just, if you're looking at the two line items on the bill, which of the two line items for the old drug or the new drug is gonna be larger. So C won't help us. Answer choice D, how long has the drug that helps to preserve existing bone been in use?
Why would the duration that we've been using the existing drug matter? We're doing something new, we're adding a new drug to the existing drug. So how long we used to do it the old way doesn't really affect anything. So that leaves us with answer choice E. It's got to be right because it's the only answer left. To what extent is the new drug retain its efficacy when used in combination with the other drugs?
Well, that would be something that's important to know because that's exactly what we're going to be doing with it. We're going to use the new drug in addition to the old drug. So does it still work if you use it with another drug? If it does, well, then that would help the argument. If it doesn't, then that would hurt the argument.
So the answer to the question of whether that happens would be relevant in evaluating the argument. So answer choice E gives us some information about the arguments assumptions. It is our answer.
Read full transcriptIn other words, to find something that would give us information about one of the arguments assumptions. It's a question that when answered could strengthen or weaken the argument depending on how that question is answered turns out. Of course, like always to find the assumptions you have to break to the argument down into its component parts.
Here the conclusion is found at the end. These patients should take this new drug in addition to the drug that helps preserve existing bones. The clinician's evidence starts with a description of what's going on, just a little bit of setup evidence. So patients who have immune system disorders usually are treated with some drugs that increase their risk of getting osteoporosis, which is a bone-loss disease.
And the next sentence is another piece of information about the state of things right now another piece of setup evidence. These patients take another drug that helps preserve their existing bone and then our only piece of evidence that used directly to prove the conclusion, since an evidence keyword. Since a drug that enhances the growth of new bone cells has now become available, they're at risk for bone loss.
Right now we have a drug that helps them preserve their bone. This says there's now a drug that enhances the growth of new bone. So they should take this new drug in addition to the drug that helps preserve the existing bone. That's our argument. This argument is a version of a net benefit arguments on the basis of one advantage.
Taking the extra drug is a good idea overall, which means that the argument assumes that there's no other negative factors they haven't brought up. That might argue the other way, that might argue against taking the new drug with the old drug. We don't theorize about what that could be. We just look for an answer choice that talks about something like that.
So when we go to the answer choices here. Answer choice A, how large is the class of drugs that increase the risk of developing osteoporosis? This wouldn't affect whether it's a good idea to give this new drug or not, it's just how many drugs could people take if they have an immune system disorder? How large that class is doesn't really affect anything.
So hence, choice A is not gonna help us evaluate the argument. Answer choice B, why are immune system disorders treated with drugs that increase the risk of developing osteoporosis? This is an interesting question, but we don't need to know why the drugs are used. Just, is there anything that might affect whether we should give this new drug or not?
So why are people in this problem in the first place, doesn't affect the argument. Answer choice C. Is the new drug more expensive than the drug that helps preserve existing bone? Now this one is almost right. Cost would be relevant to a new treatment. If you're saying that you should use a new drug with an old drug, you do need to believe that the drug is affordable.
If it costs $80 billion, then it wouldn't be something you could do, but this answer choice doesn't say, is the new drug prohibitively expensive, or is the new drug too expensive? Just is it more expensive than the drug that they're currently using. We're not swapping one drug for another, they're adding another drug on to the regimen.
Of course it's going to add some expense. The question would be, is it going to add enough expense to make it a bad idea? Not just, if you're looking at the two line items on the bill, which of the two line items for the old drug or the new drug is gonna be larger. So C won't help us. Answer choice D, how long has the drug that helps to preserve existing bone been in use?
Why would the duration that we've been using the existing drug matter? We're doing something new, we're adding a new drug to the existing drug. So how long we used to do it the old way doesn't really affect anything. So that leaves us with answer choice E. It's got to be right because it's the only answer left. To what extent is the new drug retain its efficacy when used in combination with the other drugs?
Well, that would be something that's important to know because that's exactly what we're going to be doing with it. We're going to use the new drug in addition to the old drug. So does it still work if you use it with another drug? If it does, well, then that would help the argument. If it doesn't, then that would hurt the argument.
So the answer to the question of whether that happens would be relevant in evaluating the argument. So answer choice E gives us some information about the arguments assumptions. It is our answer.
