PT90.S2.Q18 Records reveal that of physical therapy patients...

Comments

• mesposito886 Member

  December 2021 254 karma

  I think A uses a subtle language trap to get you. What it's saying is that the argument assumes that the effectiveness of seeing major improvement from a GP vs a specialist won't differ (the conclusion, so this part is correct) if the effectiveness of seeing any improvement from a GP vs specialist doesn't differ (the premises don't say that). It's also conditional logic, which can be written out as:

  Any improvement doesn't differ ----> major improvement cannot differ

  The stimulus isn't using conditional logic to support its argument. Additionally, the argument only discusses major improvement in both its premises and its conclusion. Answer choice A would be better if the argument was worded something like: "31% of patients saw slight improvement in less than 6 weeks and 50% saw more than slight improvement in more than 6 weeks (both regardless of who treated them), so it shows that the choice between GP and specialist won't affect changes of seeing major improvement."

  Flaw questions are double-pronged in the sense that the correct answer choice will not only be an actual flaw (technically A is working with flawed reasoning) but also will be found in the argument. E works for that reason; the argument never tells us (and "possibly overlooks" by omission) whether the patients seeing GPs had the same type of injuries as those seeing specialists. If you have questions on the specifics of why E works I'd be happy to post a follow-up comment.
• nnnnnnzzzz Member

  December 2021 177 karma

  @lawnerdd said:
  Could someone please explain why A is wrong? I chose E first and then read the conclusion again and thought that "necessary physical therapy" was some sort of a trap. Please #help. Thanks in advance!

  The stimulus talked about major improvement only and it was not a part versus whole kind of flaw.