Some medical colleges have recently extended the duration of a medical education by adding a research project to the other tasks medical students must complete. These schools maintain that this alteration is a response to requests from the public for more thoroughly educated doctors, rather than an attempt to generate more income from tuition. Obviously, their claim is inaccurate. If it were true, medical schools would use the more modern patient-based learning format, which produces more thoroughly trained doctors than do research projects.
Which of the following, if true, best explains how the claim of the medical schools that added research projects are not an attempt to generate more income could be true, and yet courses in patient-based learning are still not offered at most medical schools?
Many patients like knowing that their doctors have had some experience in research because research enhances a doctor's professional reputation.
There are some medical schools that use the patient-based learning format in their curricula.
The training professors need to preside over research projects is similar to the training the professors need to conduct courses using patient-based learning.
Medical schools have not yet formulated an effective way to teach courses in the patient-based learning format and maintain the quality of instruction.
The time added to a medical education by the undertaking of a research project is minimal when compared to the time spent on the rest of the medical education.
The OA looks correct but can someone please explain me the problem with A.
A - explains the possibility of existence of both the factors by stating that the demand is driven by public and thus is NOT because of monetary factors and thus the patient-based learning is not introduced as the people want doctors who have done research
MGMAT 6 650 (51,31) on 31/8/11
MGMAT 1 670 (48,33) on 04/9/11
MGMAT 2 670 (47,34) on 07/9/11
MGMAT 3 680 (47,35) on 18/9/11
GMAT Prep1 680 ( 50, 31) on 10/11/11