Self-study
Clinician: Patients with immune system disorders are usually treated with a class of drugs that, unfortunately, increase the patient's risk of developing osteoporosis, a bone-loss disease. So these patients take another drug that helps to preserve existing bone. Since a drug that enhances the growth of new bone cells has now become available, these patients should take this new drug in addition to the drug that helps to preserve existing bone.
6.
Which one of the following would be most useful to know in order to evaluate the clinician's argument?
a
How large is the class of drugs that increase the risk of developing osteoporosis?
This doesn't tell us anything about the benefits or costs of the new drug, so whatever the answer might be, it wouldn't help us to evaluate the argument.
b
Why are immune system disorders treated with drugs that increase the risk of developing osteoporosis?
We already know that immune disorders are treated in such a way, and the "why" doesn't make a difference to the argument. This just doesn't tell us anything about the usefulness of this new drug.
c
Is the new drug more expensive than the drug that helps to preserve existing bone?
While price is a type of cost, the clinician is focused on the medical cost-benefit, not the economic cost-benefit. Besides, "more" expensive doesn't tell us whether the new drug would actually strain patients' finances.
d
How long has the drug that helps to preserve existing bone been in use?
We’re not interested in the bone-preservation drug’s history unless that reveals something important about the new bone-growth drug, which this doesn't. This doesn't do anything to help evaluate the argument.
e
To what extent does the new drug retain its efficacy when used in combination with the other drugs?
This would help to evaluate whether the new drug actually has benefits when used together with the old drugs. If the new drug would be ineffective, then the argument falls apart. But if it would still be effective, then the argument keeps its strength.