The proposal to extend clinical trials, which are routinely used as systematic tests of pharmaceutical innovations, t...
kristinsmith04December 14, 2019
Odd question here
I actually do get why A is right based on the previous explanations - it picks up on there being other factors that influence a surgey's success beyond just the surgeon's skill. HOWEVER, it seems so contrary to the point of clinical trials - testing a new, promising treatment. Why would anyone ever test a surgery that we know is going to be more harmful?? Am I bringing outside info in that I shouldn't be? Does it simply not matter that it makes little sense to me, and all that matters is that the answer choice picks up on the flaw in question?
Thanks!
Replies
Create a free account to read and
take part in forum discussions.
The argument in the passage is flawed because it takes the fact that surgical procedures are different than drugs in one way as enough evidence to conclude that clinical trials should not be extended to surgical procedures. It fails to account for the fact that these two things may be different but both beneficial to test in clinical trials. It also fails to account for other things that affect surgery beyond the surgeon's skill, such as the possibility that the procedure is inherently ineffective or harmful. (A) points this out.
I think you may be misunderstanding the way that (A) fits into the clinical trials. Essentially, it points out that new surgical procedures should still be tested in a clinical trial because they may (or may not) prove to be more harmful than an alternative treatment. The point of testing these surgical procedures is to find out if they're harmful or not - we do not already know that they are harmful.
Does that make sense? Please reach out with any other questions and best of luck with your studies!
kristinsmith04December 15, 2019
Ohh i see - thank you
RaviJanuary 16, 2020
@kristinsmith04, let us know if you have any other questions!
