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.
Undermine the argument
- nikhilkatira
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 318
- Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2009 3:55 am
- Thanked: 12 times
- nikhilkatira
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 318
- Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2009 3:55 am
- Thanked: 12 times
Sorry...May I ask you to please explain the reasoning ?Shawshank wrote:IMO -- E ..
Prteety starightforward right,,,:-)
Because
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.
If the were medically indistinguishable...then the argument is strengthened ??
What am I missing here ?
Best,
Nikhil H. Katira
Nikhil H. Katira
-
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 503
- Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2009 9:53 pm
- Thanked: 31 times
- Followed by:2 members
Hey Nikhil,
I understand the confusion here.
Firstly, E is the right answer
The idea here is to weaken the argument that the doctors had some vested interests.
Allegation is being made on the doctor that they performed the surgery only to practice and make money
But this would have been true had the doctors known which patient actually needs the surgery and which patient does'nt !
E explains this idea well
hope this helps !!
- Ashish
I understand the confusion here.
Firstly, E is the right answer
The idea here is to weaken the argument that the doctors had some vested interests.
Allegation is being made on the doctor that they performed the surgery only to practice and make money
But this would have been true had the doctors known which patient actually needs the surgery and which patient does'nt !
E explains this idea well
hope this helps !!
- Ashish
-
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 191
- Joined: Sat Jun 26, 2010 9:27 am
- Thanked: 6 times
- Followed by:2 members
I am caught btw D and E.
I am not sure what the OA is, but i ruled out D because, the argument mentions of the surviving patients, ie all the categories of patients were informed about the operation risk. This point (risk) is not the essence of the argument. The argument focuses on the set of surviving people.
In drawing this conclusion, the author assumes that surviving patients undergoing operations are medically fit. But if we show that all patients (surviving and non surviving) were medically fit, the assumption fails and the statement weakens.
I am not sure what the OA is, but i ruled out D because, the argument mentions of the surviving patients, ie all the categories of patients were informed about the operation risk. This point (risk) is not the essence of the argument. The argument focuses on the set of surviving people.
In drawing this conclusion, the author assumes that surviving patients undergoing operations are medically fit. But if we show that all patients (surviving and non surviving) were medically fit, the assumption fails and the statement weakens.
-
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 1119
- Joined: Fri May 07, 2010 8:50 am
- Thanked: 29 times
- Followed by:3 members
E just out of scope here. who cares how diffirent between people who benefit from the surgery and the people who did not?nikhilkatira wrote: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.
D should be the answer+
- nikhilkatira
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 318
- Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2009 3:55 am
- Thanked: 12 times
-
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 357
- Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 8:31 pm
- Thanked: 128 times
- Followed by:7 members
The conclusion here is the last sentence: the doctors were more interested in practicing their skills and making money than in helping the 1 in 4 patients who did not benefit from the surgery. This assumes without providing justification that there's no other reason that doctors would perform the surgery on people who did not benefit from it. However, E weakens the argument by explaining that there was no way to know who would or wouldn't benefit from the surgery; prior to the surgery, all of the patients seemed the same, so until they actually operated and saw the outcome, the doctos had no idea which patients would see good results and which ones wouldn't. Therefore, they weren't necessarily trying to practice their skills and make money on the 25% that didn't see good results. They might have really been trying to help everyone, and 25% of the time, they just failed for some reason.nikhilkatira wrote: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.
- arora007
- Community Manager
- Posts: 1048
- Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 3:26 am
- Location: India
- Thanked: 51 times
- Followed by:27 members
- GMAT Score:670
wonderfully explained Andrea.
https://www.skiponemeal.org/
https://twitter.com/skiponemeal
Few things are impossible to diligence & skill.Great works are performed not by strength,but by perseverance
pm me if you find junk/spam/abusive language, Lets keep our community clean!!
https://twitter.com/skiponemeal
Few things are impossible to diligence & skill.Great works are performed not by strength,but by perseverance
pm me if you find junk/spam/abusive language, Lets keep our community clean!!
- VivianKerr
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 1035
- Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2010 11:13 am
- Location: Los Angeles, CA
- Thanked: 474 times
- Followed by:365 members
Andrea is a rock star
Just wanted to note that the question says "undermines." I ran into a student recently who was working on CR quickly with good accuracy but was beginning to make simple mistakes like mistaking "undermines" for "underlies."
"undermines" = weakens argument
"underlies" = basis for argument, supports
Good to watch out for those two very close-looking words!
Just wanted to note that the question says "undermines." I ran into a student recently who was working on CR quickly with good accuracy but was beginning to make simple mistakes like mistaking "undermines" for "underlies."
"undermines" = weakens argument
"underlies" = basis for argument, supports
Good to watch out for those two very close-looking words!
Vivian Kerr
GMAT Rockstar, Tutor
https://www.GMATrockstar.com
https://www.yelp.com/biz/gmat-rockstar-los-angeles
Former Kaplan and Grockit instructor, freelance GMAT content creator, now offering affordable, effective, Skype-tutoring for the GMAT at $150/hr. Contact: [email protected]
Thank you for all the "thanks" and "follows"!
GMAT Rockstar, Tutor
https://www.GMATrockstar.com
https://www.yelp.com/biz/gmat-rockstar-los-angeles
Former Kaplan and Grockit instructor, freelance GMAT content creator, now offering affordable, effective, Skype-tutoring for the GMAT at $150/hr. Contact: [email protected]
Thank you for all the "thanks" and "follows"!
- arora007
- Community Manager
- Posts: 1048
- Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 3:26 am
- Location: India
- Thanked: 51 times
- Followed by:27 members
- GMAT Score:670
yeah... thanx... registered in my LTM!
"undermines" = weakens argument
"underlies" = basis for argument, supports
"undermines" = weakens argument
"underlies" = basis for argument, supports
https://www.skiponemeal.org/
https://twitter.com/skiponemeal
Few things are impossible to diligence & skill.Great works are performed not by strength,but by perseverance
pm me if you find junk/spam/abusive language, Lets keep our community clean!!
https://twitter.com/skiponemeal
Few things are impossible to diligence & skill.Great works are performed not by strength,but by perseverance
pm me if you find junk/spam/abusive language, Lets keep our community clean!!
-
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 42
- Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2011 9:58 am
- Thanked: 2 times
- GMAT Score:650
Hi Andrea,grockit_andrea wrote:The conclusion here is the last sentence: the doctors were more interested in practicing their skills and making money than in helping the 1 in 4 patients who did not benefit from the surgery. This assumes without providing justification that there's no other reason that doctors would perform the surgery on people who did not benefit from it. However, E weakens the argument by explaining that there was no way to know who would or wouldn't benefit from the surgery; prior to the surgery, all of the patients seemed the same, so until they actually operated and saw the outcome, the doctos had no idea which patients would see good results and which ones wouldn't. Therefore, they weren't necessarily trying to practice their skills and make money on the 25% that didn't see good results. They might have really been trying to help everyone, and 25% of the time, they just failed for some reason.nikhilkatira wrote: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.
Can u please tell me the flaw in my logic ?
For option E: according to my logic, it strengthens the conclusion.
All the patients are medically indistinguishable and they are operated on by the doctors. The result should have been 100 % success. Because all the patients have same medical condition and the doctors are not experimenting and do not have profit motive.
But the actual result is 75% success and 25% failure. Since patients are medically indistinguishable, it means that doctors didn't do their job well. The doctors experimented or had profit motive in my mind. Else there was no chance of failure.
PATIENTS (INDISTINGUISHABLE)---->OPERATED BY "____" DOCS-----> SUCCESS/FAILURE
PATIENTS (INDISTINGUISHABLE) --->OPERATED BY "GOOD" DOCS------> SUCCESS( 75 %)
PATIENTS(INDISTINGUISHABLE)---->OPERATED BY "BAD" DOCS--------> FAILURE( 25 %)