Self-study
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.
Analysis: Pseudo-Sufficient Assumption and Flaw
For question 16, we're looking for a principle to support Dr. Kim's conclusion. As with most PSAr questions, it will be good to be clear on the premise → conclusion structure of this argument. Dr. Kim's premise is that electronic fetal monitors have at least one downside compared to ordinary stethoscopes (they are more intrusive) and provide no additional benefits in ensuring a healthy delivery. Her conclusion is that it isn't worth paying more for this method, and it should be discontinued.
So one example of a principle supporting this argument might state that if a more expensive medical procedure provides no benefits, and at least one downside, compared to an alternative, that practice should be discontinued:
no benefit AND downside → discontinued
Meanwhile, for question 17, we're asked why Dr. Anders's response is inadequate. Notice that Dr. Kim's conclusion is about the future: it's not worth continuing to pay the higher cost of electronic monitoring, and it should be discontinued from now on. Dr. Kim never claims that electronic monitoring was never worth it, or has never provided any benefits.
Dr. Anders's response, meanwhile, appeals to benefits that electronic monitoring has provided in the past. He says that until now, "electronic monitoring has been well worth the cost"— but that doesn't mean such monitoring is still worth the cost. Now that doctors know the warning signs to look out for with stethoscopes, it's not clear that electronic monitoring will provide any additional benefits. So Dr. Anders doesn't actually respond to Dr. Kim's argument.
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.