Course of Action

Course of Action questions present a problem statement and ask you to choose actions or arguments that are strong, relevant, and worth following. The PMDC MDCAT 2026 syllabus tests two skills here: evaluating the strength of an argument, and identifying what additional information would resolve a question. Expect 1-2 MCQs in the Logical Reasoning section.

PMC Table of Specifications. This topic covers two PMDC subtopics — Argument Evaluation and Information Gathering. The exam stems usually present a statement followed by two suggested courses of action; you decide which "follow" and which do not.

Argument Evaluation

To evaluate an argument is to judge whether it is strong (worth acting on) or weak (best ignored). MDCAT items expect you to apply a checklist of strength criteria.

The strength criteria

Strong vs Weak argument / course of action
Criterion	Strong argument	Weak argument
Relevance	Directly addresses the statement	Off-topic or solves a different problem
Practicality	Realistic, affordable, achievable	Impossible, unaffordable, or out of authority
Universality	Tackles the root / general cause	Patches one instance only
Basis	Verifiable fact or evidence	Personal opinion or sentiment
Scope	Proportionate to the problem	Too narrow (misses) or too sweeping (overreaches)
Specificity	Concrete, measurable action	Vague or unenforceable
Side effects	Acceptable / minor	Worse than the original problem
Example response to "rising road accidents"	Stricter licensing tests + traffic-calming	"Ban all cars" / "people should be more careful"

Strong argument

Directly relevant, factually grounded, practical, and proportionate to the problem. Example: If a city has rising road accidents, "introduce traffic-calming measures and stricter licensing tests" is strong — it tackles likely causes with a feasible action.

Weak argument

Irrelevant, opinion-based, impractical, or extreme. Example: "Ban all cars" in response to road accidents is weak — it is impractical and disproportionate. So is "people just need to be more careful" — vague and unenforceable.

Fact vs opinion

A fact can be objectively verified; an opinion is a personal judgement. Strong arguments rest on facts and tested data. "Smoking damages the lungs" is fact-based; "smokers are bad people" is opinion and therefore weak.

Relevance test

Does the argument actually answer the statement's question? An action that solves a different problem — even a sensible one — fails the relevance test. Example: If asked about reducing exam stress, suggesting "improve school cafeteria food" is irrelevant.

Practicality test

Can the proposed action actually be implemented with reasonable resources and authority? Suggestions like "double the salary of every teacher overnight" usually fail this test. Strong courses of action are realistic.

Common trap. An argument can be true and still weak if it is irrelevant to the statement. Always check relevance first before judging the merit of the suggested course of action.

Information Gathering

Information-gathering questions ask: "Given the statement, which extra fact would let you decide the matter?" The right answer is the piece of data that — if known — would settle the question. Wrong answers are facts that, even if true, leave the question unresolved.

Identifying assumptions

An assumption is something the speaker takes for granted without saying so. To find an assumption, ask: "What must be true for this argument to make sense?" If the assumption fails, the argument collapses.

Recognising assumptions

The negation test: deny the candidate assumption. If the argument now falls apart, you have found a real assumption. Example: "Take an umbrella; it might rain." Hidden assumption: an umbrella keeps you dry. Negate it — the advice no longer makes sense.

Identifying missing premises

A missing premise is a step in the argument that is required for the conclusion but never stated. To find it, write out the explicit premises and the conclusion, then ask what bridge step is needed.

What additional info resolves a question

The right "extra info" answer is the one whose value (yes/no, high/low, present/absent) directly determines the conclusion. Distractors usually offer info that is interesting but does not change the answer either way.

Worked example — assumption

Statement: "All medical students must purchase a stethoscope before classes begin." Hidden assumption: Stethoscopes are not provided by the institution. (Negate it: "Stethoscopes are provided." — then the statement loses force.)

Worked example — missing premise

Premise: Ali is a student at a Pakistani public medical college. Conclusion: Ali sat the MDCAT. Missing premise: All Pakistani public medical college students must sit the MDCAT for admission. Without this bridge, the conclusion does not follow.

Strong argument: Relevant, fact-based, practical, and proportionate response to the statement.
Weak argument: Irrelevant, opinion-led, impractical, or extreme response.
Assumption: Statement taken for granted — not said but required for the argument to work.
Missing premise: Unstated step needed to bridge the explicit premises and the conclusion.
Course of action: An administrative or practical step that follows from the situation in the statement.

Approach mnemonic — "R-P-F". For every proposed course of action, check Relevance, Practicality, and Fact-base. If it scores yes on all three, it follows. If any one fails, it does not.

Worked MCQs

Five MCQs that capture the high-yield testing patterns for course of action. Read the explanation even when you get the answer right — it's where the deeper concept lives.

Q1. Statement: "Many students fail the MDCAT each year." Course of action proposed: "All students should be guaranteed admission regardless of their score." This course of action is:

Strong, because it solves the failure problem
Weak, because it is impractical and removes the purpose of the test
Strong, because it is fair to all students
Neither strong nor weak

The action is impractical (medical seats are limited) and disproportionate (it removes the merit-based selection that the MDCAT was designed for). It does not address the underlying issue of inadequate preparation.

Q2. Statement: "Air pollution in Lahore has reached hazardous levels." Course of action: "Introduce stricter vehicle emission standards and expand public transport." This course of action is:

Strong — relevant, practical, and addresses likely causes
Weak — will take too long
Weak — irrelevant to the problem
Neither strong nor weak

Vehicle emissions are a major contributor to urban smog. The action is relevant (targets the cause), practical (similar policies exist worldwide), and proportionate. All three R-P-F criteria pass.

Q3. Statement: "Ahmed is a doctor; therefore he attended a medical college." The hidden assumption is:

All medical college graduates become doctors
Becoming a doctor requires attending a medical college
Ahmed is a good doctor
Medical colleges are expensive

The argument moves from "doctor" to "attended medical college." For this leap to make sense, the speaker must be assuming that a medical college is a requirement for becoming a doctor. Negate it — the argument falls apart.

Q4. Statement: "Many patients in a hospital are reporting similar symptoms after their meals." Which extra information would BEST resolve whether the food is responsible?

The number of patients currently admitted
The qualifications of the kitchen staff
Whether patients who did not eat hospital meals show the same symptoms
The price of the food served

A control group is the cleanest test. If non-eaters do not show symptoms, the food is implicated; if they do, something else (water, ventilation) is at fault. The other options do not directly settle the cause.

Q5. Statement: "Cheating has increased in school examinations." Which course of action is the STRONGEST?

Cancel all examinations indefinitely
Expel every student suspected of cheating without inquiry
Strengthen invigilation and introduce randomised question papers
Reduce the syllabus so cheating is unnecessary

Stronger invigilation and randomised papers attack cheating directly, are practical to implement, and proportionate. Cancelling exams is extreme; mass expulsion ignores due process; reducing syllabus addresses the wrong problem.

Quick Recap

Strong arguments: relevant, practical, fact-based, proportionate. Weak arguments fail at least one.
Use the R-P-F screen: Relevance, Practicality, Fact-base.
An assumption is what must be true for an argument to work — test by negation.
A missing premise is the unstated bridge between explicit premises and the conclusion.
The right "extra info" answer is the one that directly settles the question.
Watch out for arguments that are true but irrelevant — they are still weak.

Test yourself. Take a timed practice test or browse topic-wise MCQs to lock these concepts in.