Suruchim12 wrote:
Hi,
I still don't get why A makes the most sense. If Dr. Anders, does provide a reason as to how the electrical monitors actually alert (through warning signs) doctors to using stethoscopes which eventually might help assess the healthy-ness of a fetus, doesnt that actually address Dr. Kim's point on the monitors not doing anything different from stethoscopes?
The part I have highlighted above is an inaccurate assessment on your part,
Suruchim12. Dr. Kim makes no such point that monitors do not do anything different from stethoscopes. Look at the passage again. This is why you have to be careful about sticking to exactly what it says.
Quote:
Electronic fetal monitors, now routinely used in hospital delivery rooms to check fetal heartbeat, are more intrusive than ordinary stethoscopes and do no more to improve the chances that a healthy baby will be born.
The monitors do one thing differently, according to K: they
are more intrusive. Sure, the monitors cannot
improve the chances that a healthy baby will be born, any more than can the use of stethoscopes, but if anything, this is a non-function. It is merely a criticism of the use of the more expensive electronic fetal monitors.
Suruchim12 wrote:
I dont see the other answers being great either tbh. To me E came the closest because Dr. A is definitely overlooking the fact that just because stethoscopes don't provide "warning signs'' like the monitors before an actual stethoscope needs to be used anyway to figure the healthy heartbeat (or what not!) that justifies the cost of the monitors.
You seem to have lost sight of the question stem, which starts,
As a reply to Dr. Kim's argument. K makes no mention of warning signs. Rather, A has introduced this new consideration that has no effect on the argument that K actually made, on the premises used to support that argument.
Suruchim12 wrote:
Basically, using only the stethoscope might not be the BEST procedure but that doesn't justify the cost of another equipment that adds minimal value (only warning signs according to Dr. A, which eventually needs to be checked with a stethoscope anyway!). So according to me he really hasnt missed the point (A) but overlooked the fact that the relation between effectiveness and cost as pointed out by Dr. Kim earlier. (E)
Thoughts?
Then why chase an answer that uses such language? You should not have to negotiate, especially with an absolute condition. It seems as though A has, in fact,
[missed] the point, the
reasoning behind the argument K provides, as I discussed in my earlier post.
Mavisdu1017 wrote:
AndrewN Hello sir/expert,
Thanks for your input, but I have the same doubt as the post writer above. Since the monitor can provide warning sign, it ought to be improve the chance of a healthy baby being born. At least the effect of monitor is not totally same with that of an oridinary stethoscope. And that’s why DR. A said the monitor is well worth its cost. Mind to address this issue further? Much thanks.
Doctors might have to think less about
the warning signs they need to listen for with stethoscopes if they use the monitors, but, first, what are we to make of the concession A offers that
both methods are capable of providing the same information, and how does such knowledge of warning signs affect the outcome,
the chances that a healthy baby will be born? If your doctor tells you your pulse is too high, you still have to do something about it, and you may or may not change your lifestyle. It is purely speculative to say that such knowledge
ought to improve the chance of a healthy baby being born. It is just as likely that nothing can be done, and the baby, healthy or not, will be born, all the same. This is exactly the sort of associative reasoning that can get you into trouble in CR, not to mention upper-level questions such as this one.
Understand, I am not out to criticize anyone. My goal is to provide clarity on questions so that the entire community may benefit. CR questions (or their Logical Reasoning counterparts from the LSAT) are designed with a straight-arrow logic in mind, and until you can appreciate that point, you will keep chasing somewhat related thoughts that cause you to miss questions, and you will not understand why you keep missing them. And if these 700-level LSAT questions are proving too difficult for you, why not switch back to official GMAT™ questions, of which there are more than a thousand, and why not look to master 500- and 600-level questions first? I mean this not as an insult, but in my experience, by the time someone can get to about 90 percent accuracy on Medium-level CR questions, that person is capable of tackling just about any Hard CR question because the fundamentals are already in place. (The skillset does not trickle down, contrary to popular belief.)
- Andrew
_________________
I am no longer contributing to GMAT Club. Please request an active Expert or a peer review if you have questions.