Strunk Hospital's

[sumanr84]

Strunk Hospital's much applauded increase in emergency room efficiency due to its new procedures for handling trauma patients does not withstand careful analysis. Strunk Hospital's average time before treatment for all emergency room patients is nearly 40 minutes - the highest in the city. And for trauma victims, the situation is even worse: The average time before treatment is nearly half an hour-more than twice the city average.

Which of the following, if true, would be most damaging to the conclusion about the value of the new procedures?

a. The cities with the most efficient emergency rooms utilize the same procedures for handling trauma victims as does Strunk Hospital.
b. Because trauma patients account for a large percentage of emergency room patients, procedures that hasten their treatment will likely significantly increase overall emergency room efficiency.
c. After the new procedures went into effect, Strunk's average time before treatment for emergency room patients dropped by 35 percent.
d. Due to differences in location and size of staff, not all emergency rooms can be expected to reach similar levels of efficiency.
e. The recently hired administrators who instituted the new procedures also increased Strunk's emergency room staff by 15 percent.
[spoiler]Source : kaplan Test1, OA later[/spoiler]

[albatross86]

Facts:

2. Average time before treatment = 40 minutes (highest in the city)
3. Trauma victims - 30 minutes (twice the city average)

Consensus:

New procedures for handling trauma patients have led to increased emergency room efficiency in Strunk.

Conclusion:

This consensus is incorrect because of the facts.

WEAKENER:

A. Does that mean the increased efficiency is due to the procedures? There could be other factors involved and we cannot be sure whether this helps the arguer's case.

B. This says that if the trauma patients are treated faster, the efficiency is increased. This actually strengthens the argument by saying that since trauma patients are treated the slowest in Strunk, it should actually be considered inefficient.

C. Ahah, this addresses something we didn't think of. What if Strunk's average times were much worse before the implementation of the new procedures? Here we are told that the time dropped by 35%, which means that it may be reasonable to conclude that the new procedures increased efficiency - thus weakening the argument that the consensus is wrong.

D. They may not be expected to reach it, but we can still make remarks about whether they have achieved it or not. Irrelevant.

E. Staff increased by 15%. So what?! Irrelevant.

Pick C.

[dkumar.83]

I'll go with B.

[hardik.jadeja]

Agree with albatross86. Pick C.

[paddle_sweep]

Will go with 'C'

[sumanr84]

albatross is right on target..OA - C