rajat_g wrote:Often patients with ankle fractures that are stable, and thus do not require surgery, are given follow-up x-ray because their orthopedists are concerned about possibly having misjudged the stability of the fracture. When a number of follow-up x-rays were reviewed, however, all the fractures that had initially been judged stable were found to have healed correctly. Therefore, it is a waste of money to order follow-up x-rays of ankle fracture initially judged stable.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?

A) Doctors who are general practitioners rather than orthopedists are less likely than orthopedists to judge the stability of an ankle fracture correctly.
B) Many ankle injuries for which an initial x-ray is ordered are revealed by the
x-ray not to involve any fracture of the ankle.
C) X-rays of patients of many different orthopedists working in several hospitals were reviewed.
D) The healing of ankle fractures that have been surgically repaired is always
checked by means of a follow-up x-ray.
E) Orthopedists routinely order follow-up x-rays for fractures of bone other than ankle bones.

OA is C

Lot of the answers on the web, so not sure which one to follow. What is this question testing ? and how can i get rid of B.

--------------------------
New to GMAT world

OptimusPrep wrote:
Option B talks about the injuries that do not involve fractures. Hence this is out of scope.
Option C talks about a condition that will make our conclusion more sound. It says that the study is extensive, hence the conclusion can be trusted upon.
Does this help?