PT108.S2.Q19

SECTION 1 · rc

PASSAGE 1

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8

PASSAGE 2

Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16

PASSAGE 3

Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21

PASSAGE 4

Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26

SECTION 2 · lr

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24

SECTION 3 · lr

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26

SECTION 4 · rc

PASSAGE 1

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7

PASSAGE 2

Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15

PASSAGE 3

Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20

PASSAGE 4

Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26 Question 27

This is a weird question. It’s pretty easy if you don’t overthink it, and quite difficult if you think too much about it. I’ll explain the question through both lenses, but practically speaking you should probably just read the following, easy explanation.

Don’t worry about the premise too much, since the answer choices don’t really engage with it. The conclusion says “me too” drugs can benefit consumers. The correct answer supports this conclusion by giving an example of one such benefit. The wrong answers don’t.

I’m not 100% sure about this, but I HEREBY ASSERT that when the stem tells us to “strengthen the argument” (as opposed to strengthening the conclusion), the correct answer must strengthen the connection between the premises and the conclusion – it can’t simply support the conclusion through totally independent means.

This question is therefore problematic, since (A) seems to do exactly that. Like wtf does (A) have to do with prices?

Nothing. But it’s still relevant to the argument’s reasoning because of the argument’s weighing factors structure. Here’s the lens we need to use:

Premise: Here’s one benefit “me too” drugs give to consumers (lower prices).
(Assumption: Factors other than price don’t outweigh this benefit to make the net effect negative.)
—
Conclusion: The overall impact of “me too” drugs is beneficial for consumers.*

So (A) does indeed present a completely different benefit these “me too” drugs offer, but that’s relevant to the reasoning because it bolsters the assumption that other factors don’t outweigh price. That is, (A) says both “sometimes ‘me too’ drugs have the additional consumer benefit of being more effective” and also “it is not the case that all these ‘me too’ drugs are horribly ineffective and actually harming consumers.”

*Note on interpreting the conclusion: To need strengthening, the arguments we find in WSE questions must be flawed. But one straightforward reading of the argument makes it seem completely valid:

Premise: Here’s one benefit “me too” drugs give to consumers (lower prices).
—
Conclusion: There is at least one benefit “me too” drugs give to consumers.

Despite being reasonable, this reading is disallowed because, again, we need an argument that has room to be strengthened. We’re therefore forced into the weighing factors reading.