PT133.S2.Q1 > Question

SECTION 1 · 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

SECTION 2 · lr

SECTION 3 · lr

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 Question 21

PASSAGE 4

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

The author's conclusion is found in the last sentence, marked by a "thus": treatment X should be preferred to treatment Y for certain illnesses. The premises for this claim are first, that X and Y produce the same beneficial changes for patients with those illnesses, and second, that treatment X is cheaper and quicker than treatment Y.

The author seems to assume that, all else being equal, the treatment that’s quicker and cheaper should be preferred. But providing the same benefits is not necessarily the same thing as "all else being equal". It's possible that despite providing the same benefits, treatment X also causes certain negative side effects that treatment Y does not, and which would lead some people to prefer treatment Y. The author assumes that this scenario is not the case.

This answer choice points out that, while treatment X is cheaper and quicker than Y, it has been linked to harmful side effects that Y has not. This undermines the claim that X should necessarily be preferred to Y, since it opens up the possibility that Y should actually be the preferred treatment.

The argument is restricted only to the \"certain illnesses\" mentioned in the stimulus. The effectiveness of either X or Y for other illnesses is irrelevant.

Even if this is true, we know from the premises that X is no longer more expensive than Y. So this answer choice doesn't weaken the argument.

These physicians might not be aware that X and Y produce the same benefits, or that X works quicker and is less expensive. The frequency with which physicians actually prescribe these treatments doesn't affect the argument about which treatment should be preferred.

The argument only compares X and Y, and the conclusion only says that X should be preferred to Y, not to all other treatments. So the existence of other alternatives is irrelevant to the argument.

PrepTest 133 - Section 2 - Question 1

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action