Critical Reasoning

IMO C.

It seemed the most plausible.
But thank you David for clarifying 'in these departments' to be the key to this problem.
I overlooked it in the question.

D seems too detailed and too specific for it to have been my first choice.

I went for D as well.
Thanks for the great explanation David.

I went for D as well.
Thanks for the great explanation David.

My thinking initially was:
1.
There could be other reasons for patients dying in this hospital? What if this is the nearest hospital for any emergency patients to reach out?
What if other hospitals are suggested only after a reference from intial hospitals etc.

Then I went to answer choices.

A. Not really. Kinda obvious
B. COuld be
C. What if that is the criteria?
D. Good point. in line with my above assumption
E. Does not help the argument.

So, D?

My answer is "D'

D!

D it is.
The only answer choice that points a flaw in the argument or a point that the author of the argument failed to consider while making a conclusion.

i agree with the answer D but i am unable to cancel out B ...

B says "The Patient Advocacy Association has a reputation as a biased third party that does not always objectively weigh the evidence regarding quality of care."

isnt B weakning the conclusion

+1 for D.

Thanks.

IMO : D.. thanks for the explantion David

Kaplan premier book, a very basic and popular book said that a weakener increase doubt in an assumption. If you find out the assumption we are more confident. The assumption for the weakener D here is the illness severity is the same.

Has to be D

Premise 1: In a recent ranking of state hospitals, Hospital A received the lowest overall grade based on a patient mortality rate that was nearly twice that of the top-ranked hospital.
Premise 2: . Mortality rates in five departments (cardiology, oncology, surgery, neurology, and neonatology) were used in the comparison.
Conclusion: Clearly, Hospital A provides the lowest quality of care state-wide in these departments.
One reason that the strength of the Patient Advocacy Association's argument cannot be evaluated is that
So we were essentially trying to determine whether the patients that were treated by the hospitals were similar. If the patients who went to hospital A were sicker or death prone, then the rating does not hold good. Also if the top ranked hospitals are screening patients and only treating those patients who are "treatable" then again the ranking would be biased.
Among the options only D addresses the situation. Unfortunately, no other option even comes close. Pretty easy to pick out.
(A) The argument makes no mention of deaths of patients seen by multiple departments.
(B) The Patient Advocacy Association has a reputation as a biased third party that does not always objectively weigh the evidence regarding quality of care.
(C) The Patient Advocacy Association has only cited the mortality rate in five departments of the hospitals.
(D) The Patient Advocacy Association has not included data about the underlying health and severity of illness of the individuals served by each of the hospitals.
(E) The Patient Advocacy Association has not included recent trends in mortality rates by hospital.

Clearly (D).

If Hospital A gets patients with sever illness compared to others hospitals then death rate is bound to be high there

went for D.

Very true David. each detail in conclusion matters