Top Law Schools

I'm having difficulty understanding the correct answer for a flaw in the reasoning question. It is pt 11, s4 #19:

The proposal to extend clinical trials, which are routinely used as systematic tests of pharmaceutical innovations, to new surgical procedures should not be implemented. The point is that surgical procedures differ in one important respect from medicinal drugs:a correctly prescribed drug depends for its effectiveness only on the drug's composition, whereas the effectiveness of even the most appropriate surgical procedure is transparently related to the skills of the surgeon who uses it.

the reasoning in the argument is flawed because the argument:

(correct answer) Does not consider that new surgical procedures might be found to be intrinsically more harmful than the best treatment previously available.

Is the flaw that surgery possibly is inherently more harmful than another course of action, a regiment of prescription drugs for example, actually undermining the argument being made? Or, does it rely on the clinical trial could be an effort to help those that have a cure already in place? The surgery simply displacing the previous system of treatment in favor of its more harmful nature?

This one has me stumped. Anyone care to enlighten me?

xmking07 wrote:I'm having difficulty understanding the correct answer for a flaw in the reasoning question. It is pt 11, s4 #19:

The proposal to extend clinical trials, which are routinely used as systematic tests of pharmaceutical innovations, to new surgical procedures should not be implemented. The point is that surgical procedures differ in one important respect from medicinal drugs:a correctly prescribed drug depends for its effectiveness only on the drug's composition, whereas the effectiveness of even the most appropriate surgical procedure is transparently related to the skills of the surgeon who uses it.

the reasoning in the argument is flawed because the argument:

(correct answer) Does not consider that new surgical procedures might be found to be intrinsically more harmful than the best treatment previously available.

Is the flaw that surgery possibly is inherently more harmful than another course of action, a regiment of prescription drugs for example, actually undermining the argument being made? Or, does it rely on the clinical trial could be an effort to help those that have a cure already in place? The surgery simply displacing the previous system of treatment in favor of its more harmful nature?

This one has me stumped. Anyone care to enlighten me?

Ok,i am gonna help u with this one,look whenever u have an argument that confuses u ,rephrase that,what it says that we shouldn`t extend clinical trials to surgery-conclusion,then gives u a reason why,it takes one important difference between the two ,in this case drug composition and skillful surgeon and treats this one important difference as the only difference ,thats the assumption of the argument,always always always when u read a flaw question find a mismatch between premises and conclusion that`s where the assumption is.
Hope it helps,feel free to ask me any more questions,hope this helps.