Q11 - Some people claim that the reason

[irene122]

Could any one analyze which role does the 1st sentence play? I think it provides background information but not quite sure.

Is there a scope shift from "not prescribed" in the 1st sentence to "no...for sale" in the 2nd sentence?

Thanks a lot!

[ohthatpatrick]

In general, any 1st sentence that sounds like
"some people claim ...",
"many scientists believe ...",
"it is commonly thought that ..."
etc.

would be followed by the author saying but/yet/however [I disagree].

So the typical role of this sentence is to present the position that the author intends to refute.

In this argument, it mostly lives up to that role. Some people think that doctors don't prescribe herbs because the doctors doubt the medical effectiveness of the herbs. The author disagrees. He thinks that herbs aren't recommended by doctors because herbs can't be sold as drugs.

The 1st sentence here doesn't explicitly show up in the core of this author's argument. So in that sense, we could call it background information in this argument. It is a launching point for our author to argue why HE thinks doctors don't recommend herbs as drugs.

But usually, this type of intro would be very important to the core.

For example:
Some people claim that Harvard has the best law school. However, Yale graduates have a higher average salary in their first year out of law school.

In this case, that first sentence tells us what the conclusion is.

Conc: Harvard is not the best law school
why?
Prem: Yale grads make more $ in their 1st yr. out of law school.

Your other question was whether there is a scope shift from "prescribing" to "offering for sale". I think that is definitely a slight shift, but it's probably true that anything a doctor would prescribe as a drug would be a drug that is available for sale. A prescription for a drug is something we then take to a pharmacy, at which point we (or our insurance companies) pay for the drug.

If the drug weren't for sale at a pharmacy, it would be pointless for the doctor to write a prescription for it.

And in the case of herbs, which can be bought without a prescription, it would be pointless for the doctor to write a prescription for those.

The conclusion, though, switches from "prescribing" to "recommending". In the context of doctors, these two verbs take on different meanings, and the correct answer addresses the gap between "recommending" something and "whether that something is sold as a drug".

Let me know if you have any lingering questions about this one.

[gplaya123]

Man, this argument was nasty...
Fairly simply structured yet you just needed to wrap your head around to see how the terms could be connected.
I approached to this question using the conditional logic.
It was a time consuming process, but easier to see it I guess.

The first sentence plays no role.
The second sentence: ~Approval -> ~ Sale
The third sentence: Approval -> Patented (the sentence about cost has no bearing on argument)
The Fourth sentence: Herb -> ~Patented (extracting substance plays no role)
The conclusion: Herb -> ~ Recommended

So... you got to sorta play with those sentences to see the connection.

Herb -> ~ Patented (4th sentence)
~Patented -> ~Approval (contrapositive of 3rd sentence)
~Approval -> ~Sale (2nd sentence)
<~Sale -> ~Recommended> REQUIRED ASSUMPTION
-----------------------------------------------
Herb -> ~Recommended

If you translate the assumption in English, you get C.

Yay

Dang...
Took me a while to get this question right but...
it was hecka time consuming...
Would you recommend do it my way?

Anyway, I had fun

[damnsky]

Man, this argument was nasty...
Fairly simply structured yet you just needed to wrap your head around to see how the terms could be connected.
I approached to this question using the conditional logic.
It was a time consuming process, but easier to see it I guess.

The first sentence plays no role.
The second sentence: ~Approval -> ~ Sale
The third sentence: Approval -> Patented (the sentence about cost has no bearing on argument)
The Fourth sentence: Herb -> ~Patented (extracting substance plays no role)
The conclusion: Herb -> ~ Recommended

So... you got to sorta play with those sentences to see the connection.

Herb -> ~ Patented (4th sentence)
~Patented -> ~Approval (contrapositive of 3rd sentence)
~Approval -> ~Sale (2nd sentence)
<~Sale -> ~Recommended> REQUIRED ASSUMPTION
-----------------------------------------------
Herb -> ~Recommended

If you translate the assumption in English, you get C.

Yay

Dang...
Took me a while to get this question right but...
it was hecka time consuming...
Would you recommend do it my way?

Anyway, I had fun

Looks good. I think this is the right (and time-consuming) way to do it. However, if you can't afford to spend this much time on the problem, I would suggest a "shortcut" by trying to spot the key words.

You see: everything between "No drug can be..." and the conclusion is about the "drug", but the conclusion is about recommend the use of "herbs". Ding, ding, ding. If we were to bridge the gap between the premises and the conclusion, we probably need an answer that contains both "drug" and "herbs". C is perfect for that. On the other hand, all the wrong answers, A (about effectiveness), C (about proper use), D (about other substances etc.), and E (about cost) do not address the gap between the premises and the conclusion.

Warning: I would only use this "shortcut" as a last resort. This "method" only works if the problem asks you to use an assumption to bridge the gap (which you'd have no way to know before analyzing the stimulus). More importantly, there are other types of assumption questions on which this "method" will not work.

[ohthatpatrick]

Awesome diagnosis of both formal logical connections between ideas AND the fuzzier, intuitive shortcut based on keywords.

I would just add that a shortcut I often use on Assumption questions (again, these shortcuts won't always work) is just to examine the conclusion for any new, undefined wording.

This author is concluding:
Under the current system licensed physicians cannot recommend the medicinal use of herbs.

I ask myself, "Does the evidence give me info about the current system ?
Yes.
"Does the evidence ever mention licensed physicians ?"
Yes.
"Does the evidence ever define what licensed physicians can/can't recommend ?"
No!

So the idea of "can/can't recommend" is what I think of as the New Guy in the conclusion. The correct answer will normally connect a New Guy to something from the evidence.

If we scan the answers looking for an assumption about what a physician can/can't recommend , we only see (C).

[MeenaV936]

What is specifically wrong with B? It came down to B and C for me, and while I ultimately chose C, I can't understand what is specifically wrong with B.