Critical Reasoning

A new medical procedure replaces all three of the tiny bones in the inner ear with a single piece of ultra-thin fiberglass. The procedure has been found to greatly improve hearing in people who have experienced damage to these bones, though it is useless to people whose hearing loss stems from a neurological malfunction. This procedure will benefit a relatively small percentage of the hearing-impaired population.

Which of the following can be concluded from the argument above?

It is possible to hear without the use of the three tiny bones in the inner ear.
Most hearing loss is due to neurological malfunctioning.
More people have impaired hearing because of neurological damage than because of damage to the tiny bones of the inner ear.
Hearing loss due to neurological damage is more severe than hearing loss due to damage to the tiny bones in the inner ear.
The use of fiberglass cannot help people who have lost hearing due to neurological damage.

I chose C which is the popular incorrect answer-correct being A--source Veritas Prep test

I also fell for the trap answer - C. But on further dissecting the argument, I agree that it should be A.
P1: New procedure replaces all 3 tiny bones in inner ear with a single fibreglass
P2: this greatly improves hearing in people with damage to these bones, though less useful for people with neurological malfunction
P3: The procedure will benefit a relatively small % of the hearing impaired population

C states "More people have impaired hearing because of neurological damage than because of damage to the tiny bones of the inner ear". We cannot infer that from the argument. The procedure will benefit a relatively small % of hearing impaired population can also have other reasons for low success rate - maybe people are not capable financially to get this treatment because this is very expensive. so C cannot be concluded.

A: It is possible to hear without the use of the three tiny bones in the inner ear.
As replacement of 3 tiny bones in inner ear with a single fibreglass has helped improve hearing in people, it can be inferred that good hearing is possible even without 3 tiny bones.

Hence A is the answer.

And what is the reason for rejecting B ?

Is it same reasoning for rejecting C that - it is not possible to ascertain that most hearing loss is due to neurological malfunctioning and there might be causes other than neurological malfunctioning and damage to the 3 bones ?

YES: Its not implied / stated in the passage about number of cases of each kind of hearing impairment.

A new medical procedure replaces all three of the tiny bones in the inner ear with a single piece of ultra-thin fiberglass. The procedure has been found to greatly improve hearing in people who have experienced damage to these bones, --When the bones are damaged they either are not transmitting sound to the eardrum or only doing so in a limited way. The stimulus says hearing is improved, not restored. Once you understand this point, A is the obvious answer.

though it is useless to people whose hearing loss stems from a neurological malfunction. This procedure will benefit a relatively small percentage of the hearing-impaired population.

Which of the following can be concluded from the argument above?

It is possible to hear without the use of the three tiny bones in the inner ear. See above explanation.

Most hearing loss is due to neurological malfunctioning. Stimulus says this won't help people with neurological hearing loss. It says nothing about other causes of hearing loss.

More people have impaired hearing because of neurological damage than because of damage to the tiny bones of the inner ear. Same as answer B, just phrased differently.

Hearing loss due to neurological damage is more severe than hearing loss due to damage to the tiny bones in the inner ear. The stimulus only states Neurological hearing loss will not be helped by this procedure. No mention or inference is made as to which type of hearing loss is generally more severe.

The use of fiberglass cannot help people who have lost hearing due to neurological damage. This is specifically stated in the stimulus.

Thanks guys for ur response, can some of the expert take this up cause i still have doubts with why not C

Hey samvit,

C says - More people have impaired hearing because of neurological damage than because of damage to the tiny bones of the inner ear.
The passage tells us that 'This procedure will benefit a relatively small percentage of the hearing-impaired population'.
So all we can infer is that the number of people who have a damage because of the 3 inner ear bones is relatively less to the number of those who have impaired hearing. The passage doesn't limit the cause of damage to hearing only to 2 reasons - neurological and inner bones. There might be lot more reasons for the damage to hearing.
So we can't conclude C from the information given in the passage.
Hope this answers you

Can somebody clarify as to why E is in correct?

Thanks!
Ayesha

[email protected] wrote:Can somebody clarify as to why E is in correct?

Thanks!
Ayesha

The reason i reject "E" is that Question is only considering "neurological malfunction" and not "neurological damage"..that's too extreme case.. Maybe the solution is not there when there is malfunction.. but is there for complete damage..
For the same reason i rejected "C", "D" & "E".. "B" is again too extreme case with "MOST" so "A"

Yeah, but, i also fell for choice "c" initially

though it is useless to people whose hearing loss stems from a neurological malfunction. This procedure will benefit a relatively small percentage of the hearing-impaired population.

Notice here that the author didnt say anything about proportion of numbers between the 3 bones and neuro diseases.
he just said that the neuro diseases as a whole are relatively low in number to all other cases. maybe there are 100 different types of hearing dieases!

also the author mentioned the word "improve" which insinuates that the hearing existed and the new operation will just make it better.

Cheers

srcc25anu wrote:I also fell for the trap answer - C. But on further dissecting the argument, I agree that it should be A.
P1: New procedure replaces all 3 tiny bones in inner ear with a single fibreglass
P2: this greatly improves hearing in people with damage to these bones, though less useful for people with neurological malfunction
P3: The procedure will benefit a relatively small % of the hearing impaired population

C states "More people have impaired hearing because of neurological damage than because of damage to the tiny bones of the inner ear". We cannot infer that from the argument. The procedure will benefit a relatively small % of hearing impaired population can also have other reasons for low success rate - maybe people are not capable financially to get this treatment because this is very expensive. so C cannot be concluded.

A: It is possible to hear without the use of the three tiny bones in the inner ear.
As replacement of 3 tiny bones in inner ear with a single fibreglass has helped improve hearing in people, it can be inferred that good hearing is possible even without 3 tiny bones.

Hence A is the answer.