Critical Reasoning

Compared to non-profit hospitals of the same size, investor-owned hospitals require less public investment in the form of tax breaks, use fewer employees, and have higher occupancy levels. It can therefore be concluded that investor-owned hospitals are a better way of delivering medical care than are non-profit hospitals.
Which one of the following, if true, most undermines the conclusion drawn above?
(A) Non-profit hospitals charge more per bed than do investor-owned hospitals.
(B) Patients in non-profit hospitals recover more quickly than don patients with comparable Illnesses in investor-owned hospitals
(C) Non-profit hospitals do more fundraising than do investor-owned hospitals.
(D) Doctors at non-profit hospitals earn higher salaries than do similarly qualified doctors at investor-owned hospitals.
(E) Non-profit hospitals receive more donations than do investor-owned hospitals.

I am with B

HSPA wrote:I am with B

there is no logic in the stimulus related to B . Isn't it prescribed by all the guides that the answer choice must attack the reasoning of the argument . The reasoning seems to conclude that for profit hospitals are a better way to administer health care because inspite of low funds and fewer employees , the hospitals are fully occupied . Just because the hospitals are fully occupied , the argument concludes that the for profit hospitals administer better .
B doesnt attack this argument

mundasingh123 wrote:

HSPA wrote:I am with B

there is no logic in the stimulus related to B . Isn't it prescribed by all the guides that the answer choice must attack the reasoning of the argument . The reasoning seems to conclude that for profit hospitals are a better way to administer health care because inspite of low funds and fewer employees , the hospitals are fully occupied . Just because the hospitals are fully occupied , the argument concludes that the for profit hospitals administer better .
B doesnt attack this argument

I am with B too. The argument is saying that investor owned are more efficient than non-profit, and the question asks us to find the option that undermines the argument

A: Strengthens argument by saying the non-profit charges more
C: Out of scope. Fundraising doesn't have anything to do with investor hospital's efficiency.
D: Strengthens by making investor hospitals look more efficient.
E: Donations doesn't have anything to do with investor hospital's efficiency.

However 'B' says that patients need more recover time at investor-owned hospitals, and this even directly attacks the phrase "It can therefore be concluded that investor-owned hospitals are a better way of delivering medical care than are non-profit hospitals."

i could say that A gives the reason that the non profit hospitals are not full of patients. So A gives the alternate reason . and as you might know alternate reasons are 1 way of weakening the argument

mundasingh123 wrote:i could say that A gives the reason that the non profit hospitals are not full of patients. So A gives the alternate reason . and as you might know alternate reasons are 1 way of weakening the argument

Maybe the LSAT works differently than the GMAT, but I'd still say 'B' if am am using the logic that is used in the GMAT. One could argue that price-points don't have anything to do with medical care, but that a longer recovery time directly affects the quality of medical care. What is the OA?

edvhou812 wrote:

mundasingh123 wrote:i could say that A gives the reason that the non profit hospitals are not full of patients. So A gives the alternate reason . and as you might know alternate reasons are 1 way of weakening the argument

Maybe the LSAT works differently than the GMAT, but I'd still say 'B' if am am using the logic that is used in the GMAT. One could argue that price-points don't have anything to do with medical care, but that a longer recovery time directly affects the quality of medical care. What is the OA?

Edvhou812v , i didnt see any logic in your explanations . you just restated the premises .
Premise 1 says this
option B attacks Premise .
But there is no logic there ie you didnt show whether the answer attacks the conclusion by showing that the sample was not representative , or there is an alternative reason that shows that the conclusion may still hold even if the stated evidence were not responsible for the argument . so if am am using the logic that is used in the GMAT.i didnt understand what u meant by logic BTW OA is B but i still maintain that you didnt show how the answer weakens the connection between premise and answer . You seemed to use outside knowledge that hospitals are said to have a better review when they show results in terms of recovery time

mundasingh123 wrote:

edvhou812 wrote:

mundasingh123 wrote:i could say that A gives the reason that the non profit hospitals are not full of patients. So A gives the alternate reason . and as you might know alternate reasons are 1 way of weakening the argument

Maybe the LSAT works differently than the GMAT, but I'd still say 'B' if am am using the logic that is used in the GMAT. One could argue that price-points don't have anything to do with medical care, but that a longer recovery time directly affects the quality of medical care. What is the OA?

Edvhou812v , i didnt see any logic in your explanations . you just restated the premises .
Premise 1 says this
option B attacks Premise .
But there is no logic there ie you didnt whether the answer attacks the conclusion by showing that the sample was not representative , or there is an alternative reason that shows that the conclusion may still hold even if the stated evidence were not responsible for the argument . so if am am using the logic that is used in the GMAT.i didnt understand what u meant by logic BTW OA is B but i still maintain that you didnt show how the answer weakens the connection between premise and answer . You seemed to use outside knowledge that hospitals are said to have a better review when they show results in terms of recovery time

I only mentioned the logic between the two tests because I cannot really say much about the LSAT when I have only studied the GMAT. The two tests could have completely different approaches for all I know.

A portion of my first post: However 'B' says that patients need more recover time at investor-owned hospitals, and this even directly attacks the phrase "It can therefore be concluded that investor-owned hospitals are a better way of delivering medical care than are non-profit hospitals."

Now I don't know much about finer points of making an argument, so some of what you said went over my head, but I did put thought and effort into my answer and my explanations. My method was to eliminate possibilities and to pick the option that most undermines the conclusion. Maybe someone else can come along and provide a better explanation for why the OA is B.

edvhou812 wrote:
Now I don't know much about finer points of making an argument, so some of what you said went over my head,

You will find the jargon that i have used in powerscore CR Bible , which many of the gmat test takers on BTG follow . the alternative reason strategy has been repeated a number of times in the chapters that deal with Causality . The representative sample strategy is what you will find in weakening solutions to a lot of questions .Perhaps , you didnt go through Powerscore .

mundasingh123 wrote:

edvhou812 wrote:
Now I don't know much about finer points of making an argument, so some of what you said went over my head, but I did put thought and effort into my answer and my explanations. My method was to eliminate possibilities and to pick the option that most undermines the conclusion. Maybe someone else can come along and provide a better explanation for why the OA is B.

You will find the jargon that i have used in powerscore CR Bible , which many of the gmat test takers on BTG follow . the alternative reason strategy has been repeated a number of times in the chapters that deal with Causality . The representative sample strategy is what you will find in weakening solutions to a lot of questions .Perhaps , you didnt go through Powerscore .

Nope. And too late to do it now, because my test is in a little more than a month. Anyway, good luck to you.

edvhou812

where r u located ?
without that u are still doing better than i am

By POE for me only A and B stood for the final check.

C is a strengthner
D is out of scope
E is okay but is attacking the premise not the conclusion.

Conclusion is talking about better results. So we can just say, using 'B', that investor hospitals cure better.
In general for private hospitals "trust = money" the more the patient stays in hospital the better the money. Govt doctor who is a professionl might give the right medicine to heal with out doing all un-necessary scans and others. This is ONLY an EXAMPLE.

mundasingh123 wrote:

HSPA wrote:I am with B

there is no logic in the stimulus related to B . Isn't it prescribed by all the guides that the answer choice must attack the reasoning of the argument . The reasoning seems to conclude that for profit hospitals are a better way to administer health care because inspite of low funds and fewer employees , the hospitals are fully occupied . Just because the hospitals are fully occupied , the argument concludes that the for profit hospitals administer better .
B doesnt attack this argument

mundasingh123 wrote:edvhou812

where r u located ?
without that u are still doing better than i am

I'm in the USA. For some reason I always seemed to do well at English without putting in a whole lot of effort. The reason for tonight's late study session is because I don't want to rest on my laurels and get burned. Keep at it though. Fight for every inch.

The conclusion says "investor-owned hospitals are a better way of delivering medical care than are non-profit hospitals." so u need to weaken this conclusion which is very much a Powerscore bible method as u wanna answer relative to tht book..

Now only B option weakens the conclusion by saying that "Patients in non-profit hospitals recover more quickly than don patients with comparable Illnesses in investor-owned hospitals" that means that Non profit hospitals are better in providing healthcare... so weakens the conclusion

Hope it helps:-)