Clinician: Patients with immune system disorders are usually treated with a class of drugs that, unfortunately, increase the patient’s risk of developing osteoporosis, a bone-loss disease. So these patients take another drug that helps to preserve existing bone. Since a drug that enhances the growth of new bone cells has now become available, these patients should take this new drug in addition to the drug that helps to preserve existing bone.
Which one of the following would be most useful to know in order to evaluate the clinician’s argument?
(A) How large is the class of drugs that increase the risk of developing osteoporosis?
(B) Why are immune system disorders treated with drugs that increase the risk of developing osteoporosis?
(C) Is the new drug more expensive than the drug that helps to preserve existing bone?
(D) How long has the drug that helps to preserve existing bone been in use?
(E) To what extent does the new drug retain its efficacy when used in combination with the other drugs?
A. The number of drugs that increase osteoporosis risk isn’t the issue. We already know these patients face that risk from the immune disorder medications they’re taking.
B. It’s safe to assume patients are prescribed these drugs because they’re necessary. The argument isn’t questioning whether the drugs are worth taking in general.
C. Cost is relevant to whether patients should take a drug—but this choice frames cost in the wrong way. What matters is whether the drug is affordable or cost-effective, not how its price compares to another drug.
D. This doesn’t impact the argument much. If patients are already using the drug, we can reasonably assume it’s a standard, accepted treatment. How long it’s been used isn’t central to the issue here.
E. Correct. This directly addresses a key concern. If the drug doesn’t work when taken alongside immune system disorder medications, then taking it wouldn’t help—and that would seriously weaken the conclusion that patients should continue using it.
