The reading passage contends that drug advertising is
beneficial to doctors and consumers. On the other hand, the lecturer brings up
several points that contradict this argument.
First of all, the speaker argues that many doctors are
not expert in chemistry. For this reason, they have the chance to misprescribe (mistakenly
prescribe) new drug to patients, which is
that occurs (might cause) side
effect. This casts doubt on the idea in (of)
the reading that pharmaceutical marketing gives doctors reliable information.
Second, according to the lecturer, although
pharmaceutical advertisement informs medical effects to consumers, this (they are)
actually is written by fine and
(in small fonts, and therefore,) unreadable explanations. Thus, consumers cannot understand easily.
This refutes the reading passage's assertion that ad(vertisement
= Do Not use abbreviation) descend
(decrease) awareness information
of (on) drugs.
The final point made by lecturer is that drug
advertising leads to unsupervised prescription. This provokes multiple drug use
(overdose) to consumers. Due to this fact,
medications of doctors don't work effectively to them. (Medication?
I can’t understand.) This counters the writer's claim that
pharmaceutical advertising allows people to avoid health problem.