As advances in medical research and technology have improved the ability of the medical profession to diagnose and treat a wide variety of illnesses and injuries, life spans have increased and overall health has improved. Yet, over the past few decades there has been a steady and significant increase in the rate of serious infections.

"Surprising" Phenomenon
Why has there been a steady, significant increase in the rate of serious infections, even though advances in medical research and technology have improved the ability to diagnose and treat a wide variety of illnesses, which has increase life spans and overall health?

Objective
The correct answer should tell us about something has changed over time in a way that could lead to a higher rate of infections today compared to the past.

A
It remains true that doctors sometimes prescribe ineffective medications due to misdiagnosis.
This doesn’t suggest anything has changed over time. Even if ineffective medications somehow lead to infections, we have no reason to think this tendency to prescribe ineffective medications has increased over time.
B
Life spans have increased precisely because overall health has improved.
But why might people have a higher rate of serious infections today despite better health? This answer doesn’t help answer that question.
C
The vast majority of serious infections are now curable, although many require hospitalization.
If most serious infections are now curable, why is the rate of serious infection going up? This answer makes the discrepancy more difficult to explain.
D
As a population increases in size, there is a directly proportional increase in the number of serious infections.
A proportional increase in the number of infections doesn’t change the rate of infection in the population. Rate of infection involves a measure of number of infections divided by the population. The stimulus says the rate of serious infection has increased.
E
Modern treatments for many otherwise fatal illnesses increase the patient’s susceptibility to infection.
This is a reason the rate of serious infection might be higher today despite the increase in life span and overall health. Modern treatments, as they are used in a higher proportion of people over time, increases susceptibility to infection, leading to a higher rate of infection.

27 comments

New evidence indicates that recent property development bordering a national park has not adversely affected the park’s wildlife. On the contrary, a comparison of the most recent survey of the park’s wildlife with one conducted just prior to the development shows that the amount of wildlife has in fact increased over the intervening decade. Moreover, the park’s resources can support its current wildlife populations without strain.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that recent property development next to a national park has not harmed the park’s wildlife. This is based on the fact that a comparison of a survey conducted right before the development began and a recent survey shows that the amount of wildlife has increased over the past decade. In addition, the park’s resources can support the current wildlife population without any strain.

Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that the amount of wildlife would not have increased more without the property development. The author also assumes that the amount of wildlife is a reliable indicator of whether the park’s wildlife has been harmed.

A
While both surveys found the same species of animals in the park, the more recent survey found greater numbers of animals belonging to each species.
This strengthens by helping to eliminate the possibility that the property development decreased the amount of certain species. Without (A), it’s possible the overall wildlife amount increased, but some species were wiped out.
B
The more recent survey was taken in the summer, when the diversity of wildlife in the park is at its greatest.
If anything, this might weaken the argument by providing an alternate explanation for why the recent survey showed an increase in wildlife amount. This suggests the development might have hurt wildlife, but this effect was masked by the timing of the recent survey.
C
Migration of wildlife into the park from the adjacent developing areas has increased animal populations to levels beyond those that the resources of the park could have supported a decade ago.
Whether the resources 10 years ago could have supported the current wildlife amount has no impact, because we know the park currently has enough resources. We don’t have any additional reason to believe wildlife haven’t been harmed.
D
The most recent techniques for surveying wildlife are better at locating difficult-to-find animals than were older techniques.
If anything, this might weaken the argument by providing an alternate explanation for why the recent survey showed an increase in wildlife amount. This suggests the development might have hurt wildlife, but the effect was masked by improvements in locating and counting wildlife.
E
The more recent survey not only involved counting the animals found in the park but, unlike the earlier survey, also provided an inventory of the plant life found within the park.
If anything, this might weaken the argument by providing an alternate explanation for why the recent survey showed an increase in wildlife amount. This suggests the development might have hurt wildlife, but this effect was masked by how the recent survey was conducted.

36 comments

Medical school professor: Most malpractice suits arise out of patients’ perceptions that their doctors are acting negligently or carelessly. Many doctors now regard medicine as a science rather than an art, and are less compassionate as a result. Harried doctors sometimes treat patients rudely, discourage them from asking questions, or patronize them. Lawsuits could be avoided if doctors learned to listen better to patients. Unfortunately, certain economic incentives encourage doctors to treat patients rudely.

Summary

A Medical School Professor explains that most malpractice suits arise because patients believe their doctor is acting negligently or carelessly. Many doctors are less compassionate now because they view medicine as a science. If doctors learned to listen to their patients better, lawsuits could be avoided. However, economic incentives encourage doctors to be rude.

Strongly Supported Conclusions

Some economic incentives result in lawsuits against doctors

Doctors could reduce the amount of lawsuits they face by being better listeners

A
Economic incentives to treat patients rudely are the main cause of doctors being sued for malpractice.

This is too strong to support. The stimulus says that economic incentives are *a* factor, but nothing says it is the *sole* factor

B
The economic incentives in the health care system encourage doctors to regard medicine as a science rather than as an art.

The stimulus only says that economic incentives encourage doctors to treat their patients rudely. The fact that doctors view medicine as a science is an independent factor (they do not impact each other)

C
Malpractice suits brought against doctors are, for the most part, unjustified.

This is too strong to support. The stimulus does not say anything about whether or not malpractice suits are justified.

D
The scientific outlook in medicine should be replaced by an entirely different approach to medicine.

This is far too strong to support. You need to make a bunch of unwarranted assumptions about the author’s POV to make this work.

E
Doctors foster, by their actions, the perception that they do not really care about their patients.

The stimulus says that many doctors view medicine as a science rather than an art, which makes them less compassionate. Thus, this statement is easily supported.


30 comments

Prolonged exposure to sulfur fumes permanently damages one’s sense of smell. In one important study, 100 workers from sulfur-emitting factories and a control group of 100 workers from other occupations were asked to identify a variety of chemically reproduced scents, including those of foods, spices, and flowers. On average, the factory workers successfully identified 10 percent of the scents compared to 50 percent for the control group.

Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author concludes that prolonged exposure to sulfur fumes permanently damages a person’s sense of smell. This is based on a study comparing 100 workers from sulfur-emitting factories and 100 workers who didn’t work in sulfur-emitting factories. On average, the sulfur-emitting factory workers identified fewer chemically-reproduced scents than the other group did.

Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that the only explanation for why the sulfur-emitting factory workers identified fewer scents than the other group did is damage to sense of smell due to sulfur fumes. The author also assumes that the sulfur-emitting factory workers experienced “prolonged” exposure to sulfuar and that any potential damage to sense of smell they suffered is permanent.

A
The chemicals used in the study closely but not perfectly reproduced the corresponding natural scents.
(A) should affect the both groups equally, so it’s not an alternate hypothesis. Also, a close resemblance to the natural scent could strengthen by defending from an objection that the scents were too different to reliably test sense of smell.
B
The subjects in the study were tested in the environments where they usually work.
This shows that the test wasn’t investigating permanent damage. If the sulfur group was tested in the sulfur-emitting factory, whatever effect sulfur had on the group could have been due to the contemporaneous effects of sulfur. We’d want the test to be done outside the factory.
C
Most members of the control group had participated in several earlier studies that involved the identification of scents.
This could provide an alternate explanation for why the control group was able to identify more scents than the sulfur group. Prior experience with studies identifying scents could have improved their ability to identify scents in such tests.
D
Every sulfur-emitting factory with workers participating in the study also emits other noxious fumes.
This could provide an alternate explanation for why the sulfur-emitting factory group identified fewer scents. Maybe any damage to sense of smell was due to a different fume besides sulfur.
E
Because of the factories’ locations, the factory workers were less likely than those in the control group to have been exposed to many of the scents used in the study.
This could provide an alternate explanation for why the sulfur-emitting factory group identified fewer scents. Less familiarity with the natural scents they were supposed to identify could have accounted for their worse performance on the test.

31 comments

An additional note to (D)

The reasoning Quick Silver gave below is correct. The bigger flaw in the argument is that they were surveying people who already bought video conferencing equipment. If they already bought video conferencing equipment, then presumably they needed video conferencing equipment. That's like saying most people could use a nice new set of golf clubs because we survey people who already owned golf clubs and they said it was a great purchase.


15 comments