Critical Reasoning

Some medical colleges have recently extended the duration of a medical education by adding a research project to the other tasks medical students must complete. These schools maintain that this alteration is a response to requests from the public for more thoroughly educated doctors, rather than an attempt to generate more income from tuition. Obviously, their claim is inaccurate. If it were true, medical schools would use the more modern patient-based learning format, which produces more thoroughly trained doctors than do research projects.

Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen the argument against the medical colleges?

A)When medical colleges first started encouraging research projects, the projects were of longer duration than the projects suggested currently.


B)Medical colleges have said they will not eliminate the research project requirement unless they can find a way to compensate for the loss of revenue that would result from this elimination.


C)Many prospective medical students have expressed interest in courses using patient-based learning.


D)The public has no clear understanding of what is necessary to train a medical doctor thoroughly.


E)Research projects cannot be legitimately compared to course formats, either patient-based or otherwise.

Can anyone please explain the above problem ?

OA is B

This questions requires us to weaken the argument laid out by the medical colleges that this course is a response by the public. Others believe that this new alteration of the extended program is a way to make more money. How do we weaken the medical schools arguments?

If the public tries to take away this new extended program and the colleges argue that they will need to figure out a new way to compensate for the revenue or money made from this new program, then this weakens the argument laid out by the medical colleges. This is because the colleges state they ONLY have the programs because the public felt it was needed. The new argument is that they will only remove the program if the college is properly compensated for the lost revenue. This logically weakens the arugument.

Hope this helps

tisrar02 wrote:This questions requires us to weaken the argument laid out by the medical colleges that this course is a response by the public. Others believe that this new alteration of the extended program is a way to make more money. How do we weaken the medical schools arguments?

If the public tries to take away this new extended program and the colleges argue that they will need to figure out a new way to compensate for the revenue or money made from this new program, then this weakens the argument laid out by the medical colleges. This is because the colleges state they ONLY have the programs because the public felt it was needed. The new argument is that they will only remove the program if the college is properly compensated for the lost revenue. This logically weakens the arugument.

Hope this helps

Thanks mate, sounds good

ankit0411 wrote:Some medical colleges have recently extended the duration of a medical education by adding a research project to the other tasks medical students must complete. These schools maintain that this alteration is a response to requests from the public for more thoroughly educated doctors, rather than an attempt to generate more income from tuition. Obviously, their claim is inaccurate. If it were true, medical schools would use the more modern patient-based learning format, which produces more thoroughly trained doctors than do research projects.

Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen the argument against the medical colleges?

A)When medical colleges first started encouraging research projects, the projects were of longer duration than the projects suggested currently.


B)Medical colleges have said they will not eliminate the research project requirement unless they can find a way to compensate for the loss of revenue that would result from this elimination.


C)Many prospective medical students have expressed interest in courses using patient-based learning.


D)The public has no clear understanding of what is necessary to train a medical doctor thoroughly.


E)Research projects cannot be legitimately compared to course formats, either patient-based or otherwise.

Can anyone please explain the above problem ?

OA is B

Argument by the school: We have extended the duration of study because we want to educate our students thoroughly and not because we want to generate more income from the additional tuition.

To weaken this argument we need to show that schools have indeed extended the duration of study for monetary cause. B says just that. If the schools were really interested in educating their students thoroughly, then schools should be open to any idea that helps their student. By attaching the clause of 'compensate the loss of revenue', schools are showing that they've extended the study duration only for the purpose of making more money.