Important! Click to the test to see answers! Test test test test test test test 10 test 11 test 12 test 13 test 14 test 15 test 16 test 17 test 18 test 19 test

=> ANSWER: NO

1. Kim Schaefer‟s marketing technique may be open to criticism on moral grounds

Keywords: marketing technique, criticism, moral grounds

It is mentioned in paragraph C that “selling pharmaceuticals is a daily exercise in ethical judgement” and sales reps “work in an industry highly criticized for its sales and marketing practices”.

+ moral grounds = ethical judgement

+ marketing technique = marketing practices

=> ANSWER: YES

1. The information provided by drug companies is of little use to doctors Keywords: information, drug companies, little use

In paragraph D, it is written that “Sales people provide much-needed information and education for physicians. In much cases the glossy brochures, article reprints and prescriptions they deliver are primary sources of drug education for healthcare givers”. So, in fact, the information provided by drug companies is useful for doctors.

=> ANSWER: NO

1. Evidence of drug promotion is clearly visible in the healthcare environment Keywords: evidence, clearly visible, healthcare environment

In paragraph E, the writer states that: “Rarely do patients watch a doctor write with a pen that isn‟t emblazoned with a drug‟s name, or see a nurse use a tablet not bearing a pharmaceutical company‟s logo.” So it is clear that promotional products can be easily seen in the healthcare environment.

=> ANSWER: YES

1. The drug companies may give free drug samples to patients without doctors‟ prescriptions

Keywords: drug companies, free drug samples, without doctor‟s prescriptions

In paragraph F, the writer‟s idea is that free samples of drugs is “the most effective way of getting doctors and patients to become loyal to a product” and can affect “what physicians prescribe”, but there is no information about drug companies giving drug samples directly to patients.