I had trouble choosing between A and B . could you please check my reasoning for choosing A over B?
Thanks so much!
1- some doctors believe that a certain drug reduces the duration of Vertigo as there has been a decrease since the drugs use.
2- no significant changes in the duration of vertigo since shortage.
C: The drug has no effect on the duration of vertigo.
Before looking at the answer choices, I felt the conclusion does not really follow from the evidence. To say the drug has no effect is too strong. what if the drug worked and that's why there were no significant changed?
A) negated this would destroy the argument. so therefore the correct answer
B) This was super tempting to me. And the only reason I did not choose this was because the author states that there were "no significant changes", meaning there were at least some changes, just not enough to prove the effectiveness of the drug. so negated this would not destroy the authors argument.
#13 - Some doctors believe that a certain drug reduces the
4 posts • Page 1 of 1
Good job! Your breakdown of the stimulus is great and it got you to the right answer.
I would like to point out that choice B is weaker than I think you realized. Notice that the author's argument in the stimulus is completely based on the idea that the 3 month shortage had no effect on the average duration of vertigo. But choice B is concerned with any change that might have occurred since the drug's introduction.
The author might have agreed with choice B, but it was in no way required for him to reach his conclusion. Therefore it's not an assumption his conclusion depended upon.
Could you please explain why answer choices C and D are incorrect? They seemed like good defender assumptions to me.
For answer choice C: For the argument to work, we don't need 3 months to be the best length of time to use, we just need it to be an adequate length of time. Even if longer would have been better, as long as 3 months is at least adequate, the argument still holds. That's why C is incorrect, here; it isn't a required assumption because even if a longer time was better, it wouldn't kill the conclusion.
For answer choice D: Even if the opposite of D were true (I.e., changes in diet and smoking were responsible for some of the change in vertigo), would the argument still work? The answer here is yes; we don't know how diet and smoking changes might have varied during that time, we don't have any information about it, so D ends up pretty irrelevant. If you can explain your reasoning for D, we can tailor the answer more directly to your thinking.
Hope this helps!
4 posts • Page 1 of 1