Critical Reasoning

Of patients over 65 years old who survived coronary bypass surgery—a procedure widely prescribed for people with heart disease—only 75 percent benefited from the surgery. Thus it appears that for one in four such patients, the doctors who advised them to undergo this surgery, with its attendant risks and expense, were more interested in an opportunity to practice their skills and in their fee than in helping the patient.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument?

A. Many of the patients who receive coronary bypass surgery are less than 55 years old
.
B. Possible benefits of coronary bypass surgery include both relief from troubling symptoms and prolongation of life.

C. Most of the patients in the survey decided to undergo coronary bypass surgery because they were advised that the surgery would reduce their risk of future heart attacks.

D. The patients over 65 years old who did not benefit from the coronary bypass surgery were as fully informed as those who did benefit from the surgery as to the risks of the surgery prior to undergoing it.

E. The patients who underwent coronary bypass surgery but who did not benefit from it were medically indistinguishable, prior to their surgery, from the patients who did benefit.

E

Simply show that there is an alternate cause for the doctor's decision..it would undermine the argument...[/spoiler]

2010gmat wrote:E

Simply show that there is an alternate cause for the doctor's decision..it would undermine the argument...[/spoiler]

[spoiler][E][/spoiler]- Weaknes the necessary condition by hsowing that doctors had to take that step since the conditions of both types of patients were medically indistingushable

Answer should be - E because argument says that doctors advised patients to go for surgery for their own benefits, E weakens that possibility.

hmm... I think its D

If all patients are made informed to the same degree, then it is unlikely the doctors were hoping to make a fee.

IMO it's D. This refutes the conclusion that the Docs are just trying to make money on patients. Logically the outcome of any surgery is predictable to a certain degree. There's no way that a Dr. will ever promise 100% cure or relief. That's why they have something called informed consent, which explicity states risks and benefits.

E--is illogical and doesn't make sense. Why would someone undergo open heart surgery if he/she didn't meet the criteria for it, and by that I mean not have any signs and symptoms of coronary artery disease.

The problem with D can be - it says patients were fully informed about the risks prior to the surgery.....which does not weakens the conclusion i.e. doctors prompted for unnecessary surgery for their own benefits.

How can a doctor knowingly dupe a patient into surgery if they cannot distinguish between the 75% successes and the 25% failures? If the doctor has no idea who will be successful and who won't, then it would greatly weaken the argument. Thus (E)

Thanks, the OA is E

Cramya, i would like to read ur explanation.
nice explanation by everyone, i am confused between D and E .

Yeah, E seems like the best answer

E looks good