GMAT Focus EditionVerbal ReasoningMedium
A pharmaceutical company is seeking regulatory approval for a new pain medication. They submit clinical trial data showing that 60% of patients receiving the new drug reported 'significant pain relief,' compared to 30% of patients receiving a placebo. The company argues that this demonstrates the drug's clear efficacy. Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the company's argument?
- AThe 'significant pain relief' threshold was defined as any reduction in pain, no matter how small.
- BThe study relied on patient self-reports of pain relief, which can be subjective.
- CThe clinical trial was funded entirely by the pharmaceutical company developing the drug.
- DPatients in the placebo group were given a sugar pill that looked identical to the actual medication.
Show answer & explanationAnswer & explanation
Correct answer: A. The 'significant pain relief' threshold was defined as any reduction in pain, no matter how small.
The company claims 'clear efficacy' based on 'significant pain relief.' If 'significant pain relief' is defined as *any* reduction (Option B), even a trivial one, then a 30% difference from placebo might not represent a clinically meaningful or 'clear' efficacy, thus weakening the argument.
Why the other options are wrong
- B. While subjective reports can be an issue, they are common in pain studies and don't necessarily negate the observed difference, especially if both groups are equally subjective.
- C. Company funding raises concerns about bias, but doesn't directly invalidate the data or the definition of 'significant pain relief' itself.
- D. This describes a standard and appropriate blinding technique in clinical trials, actually strengthening the validity of the comparison, not weakening the argument.
Challenging Clinical Significance
Disputing the practical importance or meaningfulness of a statistically significant finding, especially when the effect size or definition of 'significant' is trivial.
- Goes beyond statistical significance to real-world impact.
- Often involves scrutinizing the definition of key terms or outcomes.
- Argues that the observed effect, though real, is not important enough.
Memory trick: Don't just count the points; see if they actually make a difference.