▶ Your Answer :
In
this given set of materials, there is some discrepancy between the views of the
lecturer and the author, over the issue of pharmaceutical advertisement. With
three cogent explanations, the lecturer raises objections to the alleged
benefits of advertising drugs.
To
start with, the lecturer debunks the author's first conjecture since doctors
are not experts on all drugs. To elaborate in detail, doctors cannot know about
drugs just read information about them, so adverse reaction can be occurred.
This view is in direct opposition to the author's claim that drug ads are
effective way of giving information about innovative drugs to doctors.
In
addition, the lecturer also indicates dissent over the author's idea on drug
ads. The lecturer sounds convinced that the author is making a manifest error
about advertisement since negative effects are easily obscured by
advertisement. To be specific, side effects in the description is too small to
read and in the advertisement, it is too fast to understand. However, the
author clarifies that drug ads can provide public to positive and negative
effects of drugs.
Thirdly,
the lecturer goes on to expound that the author's final point on health issues
is flawed. The lecturer mentions the ineffectiveness of self-prescribing
to corroborate this opinion. She adds that people should discuss with doctors
even without prescription because it might have no effect. Therefore, with
these three convincing explanations the lecturer posits, the author's
assumptions are all rendered groundless.
|