Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Help with PT 91 (LR)

lovejeblovejeb Alum Member
edited October 13 in General 66 karma

I got bombed by PT 91, and I think explanations would help me, especially as my test is just around the corner.

My questions are in regards to #4, #9, #17, #20 - #23.

  1. I chose B. But I don't understand how AC A is correct.
  2. I chose D.
  3. I chose E. Why is D correct?
  4. I chose A. I see why E is correct but why is A incorrect?



  • sarakimmelsarakimmel Alum Member
    edited October 12 1399 karma

    The reason A is correct is that we are looking for an AC that points out that the analogy being made is not the same. AC A does this very well as it points out that a physician can still be very good at treating patients even if they don't follow their own advice. By definition, a logician must be logical in their discussion of logic, and failing to do so is failing at one's job. Drawing this distinction is the vital flaw of the argument.

    D is a very attractive trap answer in that it gets us thinking about disclosure, unfortunately, it fails to weaken the argument that drug companies should disclose known interactions, as they can't disclose what they don't know.
    AC A weakens the argument, all be it somewhat subtly. If the disclosure of all known interactions would make it harder to know which interactions are serious, this makes a very good case against the argument to disclose them all, as it could cause more harm.

    The argument is basically: do A so that B will follow. We are looking for the AC that does NOT follow this pattern. AC E is essentially: Create a more varied repertoire to attract new patrons, which follows the pattern of doing something in order to bring about a given result.
    AC D is correct as it fails to follow the pattern and does not have the effect of doing something in order to create a given result. This AC discusses two independent things: constructing a new warehouse and getting the employees to help, neither of which cause the other.

    Lemurs are lower primates, can be diurnal, and are the ONLY primates native to Madagascar. The topic of higher primates is a bit of a red herring. Since we know lemurs, which are lower primates, are the only primates in Madagascar, AC B is the only one we can prove from the stimulus. There are no higher primates (diurnal or otherwise) in Madagascar.

    We are looking for an assumption, something that must be true. AC A does not have to be true, we don't really care if the phenomenon in question can be explained by other means, the argument does not depend on this.

    AC C does a nice job of pointing to "perception" as a psychological factor. Confusing gesturing with grasping provides the conflicting evidence.

    If a complex phenomenon cannot be caused by a simple phenomenon, as is the sociologists' argument, then economic motivation needs to be simple, otherwise they would be agreeing with rational-choice theory. Therefor AC A is correct.

    I think I got it all. If any of this is confusing, just ping me :)

  • lovejeblovejeb Alum Member
    66 karma

    Thank you for your response @sarakimmel
    Just a few more questions.

    9. The reason why I was hesitant on choosing AC A was because even though the passage talked about minor drug-related interactions, I thought sure minor drug-related interactions would detract, but what about major drug-related interactions? If the government required drug companies to notify all known drug-related interactions (including the major ones) wouldn't this AC not weaken the argument?

    21. I still don't understand. I thought the argument in the passage was basically saying that there is no reason to believe in the explanation in AC A since the general theory of relativity explains it all. But if the low visibility is explained by such medium, wouldn't that wreck the argument?

    Thank you once again.

  • sarakimmelsarakimmel Alum Member
    1399 karma

    The stim states that minor interactions CAN be harmful, and the example given was regarding limited efficacy. This points to relatively little actual risk to a patient's health. If the patient were to see a laundry list of interactions, this could cause them to pay less attention to, or miss, the major interactions that could lead to much more serious harm. It is a good reason to question the argument that every interaction be listed.

  • sarakimmelsarakimmel Alum Member
    1399 karma

    For 21, this very bright person did a much better job in explaining it than I could!

Sign In or Register to comment.