Self-paced
Dr. ████ ██████████ █████ █████████ ███ █████████ ████ ██ ████████ ████████ █████ ██ █████ █████ ██████████ ███ ████ █████████ ████ ████████ ████████████ ███ ██ ██ ████ ██ ███████ ███ ███████ ████ █ ███████ ████ ████ ██ █████ ██████████ ███ ██████████ ████ ██ ██████████ ██████████ ██ ███████████ ███ ████ ██████████ ██████ ██ █████████████
███ ███████ █ █████████ ████████ ███ ███ █ ████ ████ ████ ███████ ███ ███████ ██ █████████ ███ ████ ████████████ ██████████ ██████████ ███ ████ ████ █████ ███ █████ ███████ ███ ████ ███ ███████ █████ ████ ████ ██ ██████ ███ ████ █████████████ ███ ████ ███████ ██ ████ ███ ███████ ████ █████ ██████████ █████████
Structure: Counter-Argument
Dr. Kim points out that electronic fetal monitors are more intrusive than ordinary stethoscopes and don't do any better to improve the chances of a healthy baby being born. She concludes that the additional cost of electronic monitoring isn't justified, and that such monitoring should be discontinued.
Dr. Anders rejects Dr. Kim's conclusion: he thinks the additional cost of electric monitoring is justified, and such monitoring should continue. He points out that electronic monitoring "has been well worth the cost," since it has alerted doctors to warning signs they should listen for even with stethoscopes, which they wouldn't have been aware of without electronic monitoring.
16.
Which one of the following ███████████ ██ █████████ █████ ███████ ███ ████ ███████ ███ ███ ███████ ██████████ ████ ███ ███ ██ ██████████ █████ ████████ ██████ ██ █████████████
a
Hospitals should discontinue ███ ███████ ███ ██ █ ██████████ ██████ ████████ ██ ███████████ ██████ ████ ████████ ████ ███████████ ███████ ██████████
Incorrect. Dr. Kim isn't saying that hospitals should discontinue electronic monitoring because an alternative method that provides more information has become available. Her argument doesn't mention an alternative method providing more information. Rather, her conclusion is based on electronic monitoring providing no more information than monitoring with a stethoscope and being more intrusive.
b
Monitoring procedures should ██ █████████ ████ ██ ████████ █████ ████ ██ ████ ███████ ███████████ ██ █ ████ ████ ██ ███████████ ██████ ██ ████████ ████ █ ███████ ████ ████ ██ █████
Incorrect. This principle would only support Dr. Kim's conclusion if we knew that electronic monitoring did not provide information useful for ensuring that a healthy baby will be born. If we knew this, then by the contrapositive, the principle in (B) would support Dr. Kim's contention:
/provide useful information → /routinely used
But Dr. Kim isn't saying that electronic monitoring does not provide any useful information, just that it does not provide any more such information than monitoring with a stethoscope, which is less intrusive and cheaper. This still leaves room for the idea that electronic monitoring does provide useful information for a healthy delivery, as both arguments imply.
c
When two methods █████████ ██ █████████ ███████ ███ ████ ████ ██ ████████████ ███ ████ █████████ ██████ ██████ ███ ██ █████
Correct. This is more specific than the principle we pre-phrased, but it still works perfectly well to support Dr. Kim's conclusion. We know that electronic monitoring and monitoring with a stethoscope provide the same kind of information, and we know that electronic monitoring is more intrusive. By the principle in (C), it follows that electronic monitoring should be discontinued. So (C) supports Dr. Kim's contention.
d
When the use ██ █ ███████ ██████ ███ ███████ ███████ ██ █████ █████████ ████ ████████ ███ ███████ ████ ██████ ████ ██ ████ ████████ ████ ██████ ██ ████ █████ ███ █████
Incorrect. This principle fits Dr. Anders's argument, not Dr. Kim's argument.
e
Routinely used medical ██████████ ██████ ██ ███████████ ████████████ ██ ██ ████ ████ █████ ██████████ ███████ ████████ ████████████
Incorrect. Dr. Kim isn't arguing that electronic monitoring should be "reevaluated" because it's not clear whether it provides reliable information. She is arguing that the procedure should be discontinued because it is more intrusive and no more beneficial than a cheaper method.