Critical Reasoning

Although custom prosthetic bone replacements produced through a new computer-aided design process will cost more than twice as much as ordinary replacements, custom replacements should still be cost-effective. Not only will surgery and recovery time be reduced, but custom replacements should last longer; thereby reducing the need for further hospital stays.

Which of the following must be studied in order to evaluate the argument presented above?

(A) The amount of time a patient spends in surgery versus the amount of time spent recovering from surgery
(B) The amount by which the cost of producing custom replacements has declined with the introduction of the new technique for producing them
(C) The degree to which the use of custom replacements is likely to reduce the need for repeat surgery when compared with the use of ordinary replacements
(D) The degree to which custom replacements produced with the new technique are more carefully manufactured than are ordinary replacements
(E) The amount by which custom replacements produced with the new technique will drop in cost as the production procedures become standardized and applicable on a larger scale

Is my reasoning correct -

I was easily down to B and C. The reason for eliminating B was that it is in a way restatement of a premise. It doesn't talk in terms of recovery time and longevity of the custom replacement. In ETA we need specifics, but specifics were missing in Option B. C talks about specifics "need for repeat surgery "

Marty Murray wrote:
The argument states that replacements produced through a new computer-aided design process will cost more than twice as much as ordinary replacements.

So the difference between the cost of the custom replacements produced via the new process and the cost of the ordinary replacements is what matters.

What B discusses, the difference between the cost of custom replacements produced via the new process and the cost of custom replacements produced before the introduction of the new process, is irrelevant.

Do you want to say that the Custom replacement is the trigger word?


I mean to say that this option doesn't talks about the difference in cost between the replacement done through a new computer-aided design process to the cost associated with an ordinary replacement, but it talks about

The difference in cost in future of a new computer-aided design process to the current cost associated with a new computer-aided design process.
In short it just talks about the difference in two possible costs of one method that is new not the difference in cost of the new method and the old method (cost of producing custom replacements has declined with the introduction of the new technique for producing them)

richachampion wrote:Do you want to say that the Custom replacement is the trigger word?

I am not sure what a trigger word is. Maybe you could explain to me what you mean.

Marty Murray wrote:
I am not sure what a trigger word is. Maybe you could explain to me what you mean.

Thanks for the help.Let's keep it simple(Let's leave the trigger word part). Can you please confirm that my reasoning is now correct.

richachampion wrote:

Marty Murray wrote:
I am not sure what a trigger word is. Maybe you could explain to me what you mean.

Thanks for the help.Let's keep it simple(Let's leave the trigger word part). Can you please confirm that my reasoning is now correct.

Your reasoning is now essentially correct, except that you misunderstood something.

You said the following about B.

"The difference in cost in future of a new computer-aided design process to the current cost associated with a new computer-aided design process"

Actually B is talking about the difference between the cost NOW of the replacements made using the computer-aided process and the cost in the PAST of replacements made before the introduction of the new process. In other words, B is about how much the cost "has declined' rather than how much the cost will decline.

In any case, when you said this,

"In short it just talks about the difference in two possible costs of one method that is new not the difference in cost of the new method and the old method,"

you nailed it.

Marty Murray wrote: In any case, when you said this,

"In short it just talks about the difference in two possible costs of one method that is new not the difference in cost of the new method and the old method,"

you nailed it.

Thanks Mr. Murray. You are a Rock Star.