PT141.S4.Q6 > Analytics

SECTION 1 · 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

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 Question 25

SECTION 3 · 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

PASSAGE 3

Question 15 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

SECTION 4 · lr

The clinician concludes that patients with immune system disorders should take a new bone-growth drug in addition to their bone-preserving drug. And why do patients with immune disorders need bone-growth drugs? Because the drugs used to treat their immune disorders put them at risk of a bone-loss disease.

The clinician's point is effectively that the new drug will be beneficial for patients with immune disorders, which means assuming that the benefits of the drug will outweigh its costs.

To evaluate this argument, it would be useful to know more about the potential benefits and/or costs of this drug, beyond just promoting bone growth for people at risk of bone loss.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Question

97% of people who answer get this correct

This is a low-difficulty question.

CURVE

Score of students with a 50% chance of getting this right

25% 120

126

75% 137

Question Stem Tags

Evaluate

Stimulus Tags

Causal reasoning

Net effect

Popularity Avg. score

148

151

154

161

97%

163

You don't have any history with this question.. yet!

PrepTest 141 - Section 4 - Question 6

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action