Crack the GMAT.Quest 22

[Luci]

The new drug Prozac and the old one Elavil are about equally effective in treating various forms of depression, although patients on the newer drug may have slightly fewer side effects. Thus, revenue from the sale of the new drug is going to far exceed the revenue from the sale of the old drug.

All of the following statements weaken the conclusion of the argument above, EXCEPT:

(A) Elavil is also used as a powerful anti-emetic medicine.

(B) The Drug Control Authorities in six states have refused to allow the sale of Prozac till some more tests are carried out.

(3) Some side effects of Elavil are common to Prozac as well.

(D) Prozac is not recommended as an anti-depressant for diabetics and heart patients.

(E) The unit sale price of Elavil is higher than that of Prozac.

Your Answer : E
Actual Answer : C

The explanation given is:

The logic in the given argument is pretty weak : just because drug A is as effective as drug B for a particular cure, and has fewer side effects, does not mean that revenue from drug A is going to be more.
The old drug might still sell more if it has an alternate use (option A), or if sale of the new drug is not allowed in certain regions (option B), or if the new drug`s usage is restricted (option D), or if the sale price of drug B is higher (option E).
All these can be possible reasons for revenues from sale of drug B to be as high, or higher, from those of drug A.

Option C, however, offers no such reason, and is the right answer.


I have a doubt with number E). If Elavil, drug B, is more expensive than Prozac, drug A, and both drugs are similar, then people will preferably buy more Prozac, and this will yield to higher revenues...

Am I infering too much?. Do I have just think that if Elavil is more expensive than Prozac when sold it, it will yield a higher revenue than Prozac does?

Thanks

[StaceyKoprince]

Remember that we have to go with the best answer, and there is often a little fuzziness in CR and RC.

With E, yes, you could make that case, but you could also make the case that if Elavil costs more, it will generate more revenue. And this is actually a more straightforward assumption than assuming that people will avoid it. For example, many people have prescription drug plans and pay the same amount regardless, so they may not have an incentive to choose the cheaper one when the insurance company is eating the cost difference. But we're way into speculative territory here. At the least, we have to assume that, yes, E can weaken the argument, even though, with other info, we might be able to say it might not.

C does not directly address the revenue issue at all. If they have the same side effects, then there's no difference (at least as far as those side effects are concerned), so we don't have any info by which to conclude something about potential differences in revenues. That's the best answer.