Self-study
Consumer advocate: Support Even relatively minor drug-related interactions can still be harmful to patients. ███ ████████ ███████ █████ ████ █████ █████ ██ ████████████ ██████ ███████ ██ ████ ██████ ███████████ ██████████ ██ ████ ████ ███████ ████ ██████████ ███ ██████████ ███████ ██████████ ███████ ████ █████████ ██ ██████ █████████ ██ ███ █████ ████████████ █████████████
Summarize Argument
A Consumer Advocate argues that the government should require drug companies to notify consumers of all known drug-related interactions. This is because even minor drug-related interactions can be harmful to patients, and people who are unaware of this suffer discomfort or take more pain relievers than necessary.
Notable Assumptions
The Consumer Advocate assumes that patients would utilize this information to benefit themselves, they may not care.
The author also assumes that the inclusion of minor drug-related interactions will not distract/outweigh the importance of the major ones, thereby causing more harm than good.
9.
Which one of the following, ██ █████ ████ ███████ ███ ████████ ██████████ █████████
a
Providing information on █████ ████████████ ████████████ █████ ███████ ████ █ █████████ █████████ ██ ███████ █████████████
This weakens the conclusion because it suggests that including more recommendations could lead to patients neglecting more dangerous interactions, causing more harm than good.
b
Many drugs have █████ ██████████ ████████████ ████████████ ████ ████ ████████
Aspirin is pretty irrelevant to the reasoning of the argument. It is really brought up as an example to demonstrate a broader point.
c
Providing information about ███ ████████████ ████████████ █████ ██████ ██ ████ ██████████ █████ █████████ ███ ██████████
While this provides a potential downside to the legislation, it does not weaken the underlying reasoning for why the author supports it.
d
Current research is ████ ████ ████ ████████████ ████████████ ████ ███ ███ ████ ███████████
This is irrelevant because the argument is concerned with providing information about “known” interactions, not ones that have yet to be identified.
Illusory inconsistency
Illusory inconsistency
Answer is attractive because it seems to (but doesn't actually) contradict the premises or conclusion.
e
Pharmacists usually draw █████████ █████████ ██ ███████ ████████ ████ ███ ████████ ████ ██████
This does not impact the argument's reasoning because the Consumer Advocate is focused on the labels that aren’t currently present. It does not matter if pharmacists are pointing to labels that are already there.