|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 19 Nov 2007
Posts: 479
Followers: 3
Kudos [?]:
35
[0], given: 4
|
Try this one chums: Often patients with ankle fractures that [#permalink]
 19 Nov 2007, 19:51
Question Stats:
0% (00:00) correct
 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions
Try this one chums:
Often patients with ankle fractures that are stable, and thus do not
require surgery, are given follow-up x-rays because their orthopedists
are concerned about possibly having misjudged the stability of the fracture.
When a number of follow-up x-rays were reviewed, however, all
the fractures that had initially been judged stable were found to have
healed correctly. Therefore, it is a waste of money to order follow-up
x-rays of ankle fracture initially judged stable.
Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?
A. Doctors who are general practitioners rather than orthopedists are
less likely than orthopedists to judge the stability of an ankle fracture
correctly.
B. Many ankle injuries for which an initial x-ray is ordered are revealed
by the x-ray not to involve any fracture of the ankle.
C. X-rays of patients of many different orthopedists working in several
hospitals were reviewed.
D. The healing of ankle fractures that have been surgically repaired is
always checked by means of a follow-up x-ray.
E. Orthopedists routinely order follow-up x-rays for fractures of bone
other than ankle bones.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 07 Sep 2007
Posts: 80
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
4
[0], given: 0
|
go for C
|
|
|
|
|
|
CEO
Joined: 29 Mar 2007
Posts: 2618
Followers: 13
Kudos [?]:
144
[0], given: 0
|
A.Haung wrote: go for C
I vaguely remember seeing this one.
Can you explain why its C and not B? thx.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 11 Jun 2007
Posts: 647
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
17
[0], given: 0
|
I will go with
E. Orthopedists routinely order follow-up x-rays for fractures of bone other than ankle bones.
If orthopedists routinely DO NOT order follow up x-rays for fractures of ankle bones, then they may presume that fractures of ankle bones need not be x-rayed. Although it might have been better to qualify the choice with 'stable' ankle fractures rather than just 'fractures', it is the best of the lot, I guess.
C. X-rays of patients of many different orthopedists working in several
hospitals were reviewed.
I would have chosen (C) if it were more specific. X-rays of patients of many different orthopedists....patients need not have ankle injuries but some other bone related injuries.
B. Many ankle injuries for which an initial x-ray is ordered are revealed by the x-ray not to involve any fracture of the ankle.
I would have chose (B) if it said many ankle 'fractures' and not 'injuries'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 25 Jul 2007
Posts: 68
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
2
[0], given: 0
|
would go for C...but am not very sure..please when posting the OA...give the OE..also..this seems to be a very weird question though 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 14 Nov 2007
Posts: 46
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 0
|
Re: critical reasoning-solve this [#permalink]
20 Nov 2007, 09:15
I will go with C because we need to ascertain that the x-rays reviewed were diverse with different kinds of patients, orthopedisits and equipments in each case. That is the only way we can make a generalized statement about waste of money.
I feel B is not right, because it talks about intital x-rays and not the follow-up xrays. Also it says "many ankle injuries"...which is not a case for generalization.
I think E is wrong. The fact that orthos order follow-up xrays of other bones, tells you nothing about follow-up xrays of ankle bones. It does not mean that follow-up xrays for ankle bones are not ordered. We do not also know the results of the follow-up xrays of the other bones as well. SO all in all, E is kind of irrelevant I feel.
If anything D goes against the argument.
A is irrelevant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 21 Jun 2007
Posts: 149
Schools: UCLA Anderson School of Mgmt (FEMBA Class of 2013)
WE 1: 7.5 years in Engg. Consulting
Followers: 3
Kudos [?]:
7
[0], given: 0
|
I will go with D also.
If doctors check the healing of surgically repaired ankle by means of X-ray, it follows that taking X-rays are good enough to identify whether it is stable or not and therefore, if they can do this initiall and judge that it is stable then no more x-rays are required.
However, I am not 100% convinced with this either , but feel better than other choices.
C does not say anything that will help in saying that one time x-ray is good enough.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 14 Nov 2007
Posts: 64
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
2
[0], given: 0
|
I will go with C. Whats the OA, please?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 19 Nov 2007
Posts: 479
Followers: 3
Kudos [?]:
35
[0], given: 4
|
Homies, the answer's B.
I guess all of u missed it.
Eyunni, you were close man, but u missed it.
Thats the thing with these CRs. They are all f*** up.
I ll post my explanations soon.I am in a hurry right now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 04 Nov 2007
Posts: 52
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
1
[0], given: 0
|
Re: critical reasoning-solve this [#permalink]
20 Nov 2007, 21:21
vscid wrote: Try this one chums:
Often patients with ankle fractures that are stable, and thus do not
require surgery, are given follow-up x-rays because their orthopedists
are concerned about possibly having misjudged the stability of the fracture.
When a number of follow-up x-rays were reviewed, however, all
the fractures that had initially been judged stable were found to have
healed correctly. Therefore, it is a waste of money to order follow-up
x-rays of ankle fracture initially judged stable.
Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?
A. Doctors who are general practitioners rather than orthopedists are
less likely than orthopedists to judge the stability of an ankle fracture
correctly.
B. Many ankle injuries for which an initial x-ray is ordered are revealed
by the x-ray not to involve any fracture of the ankle.
C. X-rays of patients of many different orthopedists working in several
hospitals were reviewed.
D. The healing of ankle fractures that have been surgically repaired is
always checked by means of a follow-up x-ray.
E. Orthopedists routinely order follow-up x-rays for fractures of bone
other than ankle bones.
Like most GMAT verbal questions, the difficulty is not in the passage but in the answer choices. GMAT verbal does intentionally make the answer choices unncessarily verbose and confusing. GMAT should test the logical reasoning of test takers, not the ability to clear confusion in a bad written English sentence. Unfortunately, this is the way GMAT operates and it is unfair to non-native English speakers.
In CR, it's very important that you can distinguish between the premises and the conclusion. Then it's much simpler to answer the question.
I actually picked B before looking at all the responses and answers. The conclusion of the passage is: "It's a waste of money to order follow-up x-ray of ankle fractures intially judged stable." The premise that strengthens the conclusion above would provide fact/information that further prove that taking x-ray is unecessary and wasteful. Of all answer choices, B shows that many x-rays ordered for ankle injuries do not show fracture of the ankle. Thus, it makes follow-up x-rays unnecessary & wasteful.
Wonder if that makes sense? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
CEO
Joined: 29 Mar 2007
Posts: 2618
Followers: 13
Kudos [?]:
144
[0], given: 0
|
Re: critical reasoning-solve this [#permalink]
20 Nov 2007, 22:10
tnguyen707 wrote: vscid wrote: Try this one chums:
Often patients with ankle fractures that are stable, and thus do not
require surgery, are given follow-up x-rays because their orthopedists
are concerned about possibly having misjudged the stability of the fracture.
When a number of follow-up x-rays were reviewed, however, all
the fractures that had initially been judged stable were found to have
healed correctly. Therefore, it is a waste of money to order follow-up
x-rays of ankle fracture initially judged stable.
Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?
A. Doctors who are general practitioners rather than orthopedists are
less likely than orthopedists to judge the stability of an ankle fracture
correctly.
B. Many ankle injuries for which an initial x-ray is ordered are revealed
by the x-ray not to involve any fracture of the ankle.
C. X-rays of patients of many different orthopedists working in several
hospitals were reviewed.
D. The healing of ankle fractures that have been surgically repaired is
always checked by means of a follow-up x-ray.
E. Orthopedists routinely order follow-up x-rays for fractures of bone
other than ankle bones. Like most GMAT verbal questions, the difficulty is not in the passage but in the answer choices. GMAT verbal does intentionally make the answer choices unncessarily verbose and confusing. GMAT should test the logical reasoning of test takers, not the ability to clear confusion in a bad written English sentence. Unfortunately, this is the way GMAT operates and it is unfair to non-native English speakers. In CR, it's very important that you can distinguish between the premises and the conclusion. Then it's much simpler to answer the question. I actually picked B before looking at all the responses and answers. The conclusion of the passage is: "It's a waste of money to order follow-up x-ray of ankle fractures intially judged stable." The premise that strengthens the conclusion above would provide fact/information that further prove that taking x-ray is unecessary and wasteful. Of all answer choices, B shows that many x-rays ordered for ankle injuries do not show fracture of the ankle. Thus, it makes follow-up x-rays unnecessary & wasteful. Wonder if that makes sense? Guys ur all missing it. I specifically remember this question from a earlier post. My answer was also B. However, the OA is C.
Unless the dude who posted it decided to be cynical, then the OA is C.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 19 Nov 2007
Posts: 479
Followers: 3
Kudos [?]:
35
[0], given: 4
|
Re: critical reasoning-solve this [#permalink]
21 Nov 2007, 09:40
tnguyen707 wrote: vscid wrote: Try this one chums:
Often patients with ankle fractures that are stable, and thus do not
require surgery, are given follow-up x-rays because their orthopedists
are concerned about possibly having misjudged the stability of the fracture.
When a number of follow-up x-rays were reviewed, however, all
the fractures that had initially been judged stable were found to have
healed correctly. Therefore, it is a waste of money to order follow-up
x-rays of ankle fracture initially judged stable.
Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?
A. Doctors who are general practitioners rather than orthopedists are
less likely than orthopedists to judge the stability of an ankle fracture
correctly.
B. Many ankle injuries for which an initial x-ray is ordered are revealed
by the x-ray not to involve any fracture of the ankle.
C. X-rays of patients of many different orthopedists working in several
hospitals were reviewed.
D. The healing of ankle fractures that have been surgically repaired is
always checked by means of a follow-up x-ray.
E. Orthopedists routinely order follow-up x-rays for fractures of bone
other than ankle bones. Like most GMAT verbal questions, the difficulty is not in the passage but in the answer choices. GMAT verbal does intentionally make the answer choices unncessarily verbose and confusing. GMAT should test the logical reasoning of test takers, not the ability to clear confusion in a bad written English sentence. Unfortunately, this is the way GMAT operates and it is unfair to non-native English speakers. Man, its unfair for native English speakers too, trust me.In CR, it's very important that you can distinguish between the premises and the conclusion. Then it's much simpler to answer the question. I actually picked B before looking at all the responses and answers. The conclusion of the passage is: "It's a waste of money to order follow-up x-ray of ankle fractures intially judged stable." The premise that strengthens the conclusion above would provide fact/information that further prove that taking x-ray is unecessary and wasteful. Of all answer choices, B shows that many x-rays ordered for ankle injuries do not show fracture of the ankle. Thus, it makes follow-up x-rays unnecessary & wasteful. Wonder if that makes sense?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 14 Nov 2007
Posts: 64
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
2
[0], given: 0
|
Still not convinced with B . I beleive its C.
The paragraph clearly mentions that on the first time , the fractures are found to be stable whereas your option B indicates that there are no fractures at the first time which are contradicting.
Is that convincing?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Similar topics |
Author |
Replies |
Last post |
|
Similar
Topics:
|
 |
|
|
Often patients with ankle fractures that are stable, and
|
Vithal |
11 |
05 Jun 2005, 09:20 |
|
|
|
|
Often patients with ankle fractures that are stable, and
|
jerrywu |
14 |
12 Sep 2006, 06:57 |
|
|
|
|
Often patients with ankle fractures that are stable, and
|
Himalayan |
12 |
27 Dec 2006, 20:38 |
|
|
|
|
Often patients with ankle fractures that are stable, and
|
Fistail |
10 |
04 Aug 2007, 21:09 |
|
|
2
|
|
Often patients with ankle fractures that are stable, and
|
singh_amit19 |
21 |
10 Oct 2007, 14:44 |
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Vercules, Legendaddy, noboru, Marcab, metallicafan, rajeevrks27, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, souvik101990, doe007, MacFauz, PTK, carcass, kissthegmat, Narenn
|
close
