Summary
The government will not pay for patients to take Antinfia until the manufacturer provides information about the drug’s cost-effectiveness. This information can only be obtained by performing massive clinical trials. The trials cannot be performed until the drug is in widespread circulation, which will happen only if the government pays for Antinfia.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
Government pays → provide detailed info → massive clinical trails → widespread circulation → government pays
This chain is circular, and the stimulus says the government is not paying. You can run the contrapositive back and draw any valid inference along the chain. (no widespread circulation, no clinical trials, no detailed info)
This chain is circular, and the stimulus says the government is not paying. You can run the contrapositive back and draw any valid inference along the chain. (no widespread circulation, no clinical trials, no detailed info)
A
The government health service never pays for any medicine unless that medicine has been shown to be cost-effective.
This is too broad to support. The stimulus is purely focused on Antinfia, not “any medicine”
B
Antinfia will never be in widespread circulation.
The stimulus says that the drug will be in wide circulation only if the government pays. The government is refusing to pay. Thus, it will never be in wide circulation.
C
If the government health service does not pay for Antinfia, then many patients will pay for Antinfia themselves.
The stimulus does not give any information about whether patients will pay out of pocket or not. You need to make some assumptions to make this work
D
The government health service should pay for patients to take Antinfia.
The stimulus does not say whether the government should/should not pay for Antinfia. It only explains what barriers the drug is facing to becoming widely available.
E
Antinfia is not cost-effective.
The stimulus does not say whether Antinfia is/is not cost-effective. The stimulus only notes that the drug company cannot yet provide information about its cost-effectiveness.
Pankaj: But keep in mind that the ban would apply only to smoking in public places. People could still smoke all they want in private.
Speaker 1 Summary
Ana opposes the proposed smoking ban because she thinks it’s not the government’s business to prevent people from doing stuff that harms only themselves.
Speaker 2 Summary
Pankaj points out that the proposed ban would only apply in situations that expose other people to smoking. Smoking would still be allowed in private. The implicit point is that Ana’s libertarian principle isn’t a good reason for opposing the ban.
Objective
We’re looking for a point of disagreement. They disagree over whether the proposed smoking ban would prevent people from doing things that harm only themselves. Ana thinks it would. Pankaj thinks it wouldn’t.
A
it is the government’s business to prevent people from harming themselves
Pankaj doesn’t have an opinion. He doesn’t discuss whether the government should or should not protect people from hurting themselves.
B
government should be restrained by libertarian principles
Pankaj doesn’t have an opinion. He doesn’t discuss libertarian principles.
C
the proposed smoking ban is intended to prevent harm only to smokers themselves
This is a point of disagreement. Ana believes the ban is intended to prevent harm only to smokers themselves. This is why she opposes the ban. Pankaj disagrees, since it bans smoking in public (where others are present).
D
the proposed ban would prohibit smoking in public places
Ana has no opinion. She believes the ban prevents people from doing things that harm only themselves. But whether this ban applies in public and private or only in private is not clear from her statements.
E
there are cases in which government should attempt to regulate private behavior
Pankaj doesn’t have an opinion. He doesn’t discuss whether government should ever regulate anything.