Bunuel wrote:
A careful review of hospital fatalities due to anesthesia during the last 20 years indicates that the most significant safety improvements resulted from better training of anesthetists. Equipment that monitors a patient’s oxygen and carbon dioxide levels was not available in most operating rooms during the period under review. Therefore, the increased use of such monitoring equipment in operating rooms will not significantly cut fatalities due to anesthesia.
A flaw in the argument is that
(A) the evidence cited to show that one factor led to a certain result is not sufficient to show that a second factor will not also lead to that result
(B) the reasons given in support of the conclusion presuppose the truth of that conclusion
(C) the evidence cited to show that a certain factor was absent when a certain result occurred does not show that the absence of that factor caused that result
(D) the evidence cited in support of the conclusion is inconsistent with other information that is provided
(E) the reason indicated for the claim that one event caused a second more strongly supports the claim that both events were independent effects of a third event
OFFICIAL EXPLANATION
(A) Yes. That better training of anesthetists improved safety in no way implies that new equipment would not have a similar result. The argument cannot validly make a conclusion about equipment that was not studied.
(B) No. The argument is not circular. In fact, the argument is flawed because it takes too big of a leap in logic.
(C) No. The passage does not argue that the absence of a certain factor (monitoring devices) caused a certain result (increase in safety). Rather, it states that the presence of better-trained anesthetists resulted in a better safety record. The argument then invalidly concludes that the presence of the monitoring devices
would not also improve the safety record.
(D) No. Only one piece of evidence is cited—a review of hospital fatalities due to anesthesia during the last 20 years. No evidence is cited to support the conclusion regarding the use of monitoring equipment.
(E) No. The argument states that one event (better training of anesthetists) resulted in another event (an improved safety record in hospital anesthesia use).
Nothing in the passage suggests that both of these results were independently caused by a third event.