Critical Reasoning

PharmaCorp, which manufactures the drug Aidistan, claims that Aidistan is more effective than the drug Betatol in treating Puma Syndrome. To support its claim, PharmaCorp cites the fact that one of every two victims of Puma Syndrome is treated successfully with Aidistan alone, as opposed to one out of every three treated with Betatol alone. However, PharmaCorp's claim cannot be taken seriously in light of the fact that the presence of Gregg's Syndrome has been known to render Puma Syndrome more resistant to any treatment.

Which of the following, if true, would most support the allegation that PharmaCorp's claim cannot be taken seriously?


a. Among people who suffer from both Puma Syndrome and Gregg's Syndrome, fewer are treated with Aidistan than with Betatol.

b. Among people who suffer from both Puma Syndrome and Gregg's Syndrome, fewer are treated with Betatol than with Aidistan.

c. Gregg's Syndrome reduces Aidistan's effectiveness in treating Puma Syndrome more than Betatol's effectiveness in treating the same syndrome.

d. Betatol is less effective than Aidistan in treating Gregg's Syndrome.

e. Neither Aidistan nor Betatol is effective in treating Gregg's Syndrome.


The correct answer is (A). This argument relies on the assumption that Gregg's Syndrome is more prevalent among Puma Syndrome victims who take Betatol than among those who take Aidistan. (A) essentially affirms this assumption, although it expresses it in a somewhat different way. Given that Gregg's Syndrome renders any Puma Syndrome treatment less effective, if victims who have both syndromes are treated with Betatol while victims who have only Puma Syndrome are treated with Aidistan, then Aidistan will appear to be more effective, although the absence of Gregg's Syndrome might.

My answer was C.

Can somebody tell me how the assumption that Gregg's is more prevalent among Puma victims who take Betatol than among those who take Aidistan is made apparent in the passage? I can't see it.

very hard question.it take me a long time to understand

even when Gregg Sydrom is present and make Puma more difficult to cure, person use Betatol. when Puma is more easy to cure, when Puma is alone without Gregg, person is treated more sussecfull with Aita. so, this support that Betatal is more effective

howeve, in the test day, I will not do this question.

No doubt, its a difficult question. I feel its a 'resolve a paradox' question.

Aidistan is used more than Betatol to treat Puma syndrome yet it isn't a better medicine( or more effective medicine) for treatment.

The paradox can be explained by showing that Aidistan is used more for some other reason than its effectiveness or by showing that Betatol is administered only to patients who suffer severely ( Here Puma syndrome with Gregg's syndrome) and patients have less chances of recovery.

Option A states that Betatol is administered to more number of patients who suffer from both syndromes and that explains the paradox.

its a nice question...

Companys claim: aidstan is better than betatol..

I think A is fine...

If the number of people treated by aidstan is less .. then one out of the two getting rectified is definately a small number...


C is wrong

even if it reduces the effectiveness of aidstan even then it can be effective to solve the puma sydrom...

PharmaCorp, which manufactures the drug Aidistan, claims that Aidistan is more effective than the drug Betatol in treating Puma Syndrome. To support its claim, PharmaCorp cites the fact that one of every two victims of Puma Syndrome is treated successfully with Aidistan alone, as opposed to one out of every three treated with Betatol alone. However, PharmaCorp's claim cannot be taken seriously in light of the fact that the presence of Gregg's Syndrome has been known to render Puma Syndrome more resistant to any treatment.

a. Among people who suffer from both Puma Syndrome and Gregg's Syndrome, fewer are treated with Aidistan than with Betatol.

If we have to show that Aidistan should not be taken seriously even though the results of experiment show that aidistan is better than Betatol
then we have to show that Aidistan was given to less serious cases and Betatol to more serious cases..

Option A does that....

I would like to re-open this thread.
Source: Master The GMAT 2010

Can someone give some explanation about all choices? It seems that I understood correct answer.

PharmaCorp's claim cannot be taken seriously in light of the fact that the presence of Gregg's Syndrome has been known to render Puma Syndrome more resistant to any treatment. => can someone elaborate this portion? I understood that treatment does not have much effect on Puma Syndrome in presence of Gregg's Syndrome. Am I right?

1 out of 2 respond to Aidistan but only 1 out of 3 respond to Betatol.

But choice A tells us that the kind of people who are treated with Aidistan are the kind who are easier to treat (because fewer of them have Gregg's syndrome which renders Puma syndrome more resistant to any treatment).

So, the reason Aidistan has better treatment rates might not be because it is a better treatment; rather Aidistan's superior treatment rate may be due to the fact that the people treated with Aidistant are easier to treat.

Testluv wrote:1 out of 2 respond to Aidistan but only 1 out of 3 respond to Betatol.

But choice A tells us that the kind of people who are treated with Aidistan are the kind who are easier to treat (because fewer of them have Gregg's syndrome which renders Puma syndrome more resistant to any treatment).

So, the reason Aidistan has better treatment rates might not be because it is a better treatment; rather Aidistan's superior treatment rate may be due to the fact that the people treated with Aidistant are easier to treat.

hi,

will you pl.also explain why C can't be correct?

In this question we are more concerned about the treatment of Puma, by Drug A and Drug B.

and PC, in the stimulus says Drug A treats 1/2 while Drug B treats 1/3 to support the claim that Drug A is better.

When we refute this claim we will inevitably look at the presence of evidence which proves that the premise above is not sufficient to prove the claim that Drug A is effective.

In C, we say GS reduces A's effectiveness more than it reduces B's.

But what do we know about the effectiveness in absence of GS? (because we are concerned about the treatment of PS, as it is claimed in the stimulus)

Not much. So it becomes imperative for us to find an evidence which looks at that angle of the problem. Option A does this well as it states that the samples taken for comparison are not identical. So, the claim could not be vindicated by the premise of statistics alone.

Please correct me if I'm wrong