A new handheld device purports to determine the severity of concussion

A new handheld device purports to determine the severity of concussions by reading the brain's electrical signals and comparing them to a database of 15,000 scans compiled at a brain research lab. - Apparently, a new device can determine how severe a concussion is. How does it do it? By reading the brain’s signals and comparing the signals with a compilation of scans.

The device is intended to help doctors decide whether an athlete who has received a blow to the head during a competition should be sent back into the game. - The device is meant to solve a specific sports problem. Should an athlete who has injured the head during a competition be sent back into the game? The device is intended to help doctors decide this.

Gist:A new device helps determine the severity of concussions. The device is intended to help doctors decide whether an athlete with a blow to the head during a game should be sent back in.


We need to evaluate the effectiveness of the device in helping doctors decide whether to send an athlete with a blow to the head back into a game. Two things come to mind:

Does the device report the severity accurately? Is the method of scanning brains for signals and comparing them with a database of scans a proper one?

Are the doctors capable of making an informed decision about an injured athlete’s return to the game based on the output of the device? Let’s say the device gives a reading in “severity units”. And let’s say the reading for a player is 750 severity units. Is this value too high? Is it within the feasible range to let the player go back into the game? Are there established standards that the doctors can map the readings against? Or, are the doctors informed enough to interpret these readings to make informed decisions? We don’t want players to go back into the game and end up even worse, after all.


A. Whether the database of brain scans will regularly be updated with new scans
Incorrect. If the device is able to assess the severity of concussions accurately, new scans would not be needed. If the device is inaccurate, there is no indication that updating with new scans will help. Establishing this would not be helpful.

B. Whether by use of this device doctors will be able to make a sound decision about whether to allow an athlete back into the competition before it ends
Correct. The intended purpose of the device is to help doctors decide whether an athlete with a head injury should be sent back into the game. If the doctors are able to make a sound decision by use of the device in time to send the athlete back into the game, the device fulfils its purpose. If, by use of this device, the time doctors need to make a decision is so long that the game ends before the decision is taken, the device would not serve its intended purpose. Thus, figuring this out would certainly help evaluate the effectiveness of the device for the intended purpose.

C. Whether the device will be endorsed by a large number of medical professionals
Incorrect. Endorsement by medical professionals does not tell us about the effectiveness of the device. Medical professionals may endorse because the device manufacturers reached out to them and chalked out some agreement under which the medical professionals needed to endorse. The device could simply not be endorsed by many medical professionals because the vast medical community (outside of the sports segment) may not have heard about the device. Or, even if they heard about it, were not compelled enough to endorse it.

D. Whether the database includes scans of non-injured athletes in the same game as the injured athlete
Incorrect. Does it matter whether we have scan of injured and non-injured athletes from the same game? If we have scans of athletes who are from different games, would it impact the quality of the scans?

There is no reason to believe so. There seems to be no reason to think that whether athletes are from the same game or not can impact the quality of the scans and thus the quality of the database.

Even if we remove “in the same game” from the option and change it to say: Whether the database includes scans of non-injured athletes as well as the injured athletes

What we can rationally expect the database to contain by default is the scans of injured athletes. Now, this statement essentially asks whether the database also contains the scans of non-injured athletes. Do we have any indication that having the scans of non-injured athletes would increase the quality of the database? The answer is No. Even if we know that the database has scans of non-injured athletes as well, we do not become surer of the quality of the database.

While certain information about the composition of the database can indicate the quality of the database, which can impact the effectiveness of the device, the given option asks irrelevant details about the composition and is thus incorrect.

E. Whether team doctors have until now been mistaken in their assessments of whether an athlete can safely continue to play
Incorrect. We need to evaluate whether the device will be effective. Whether doctors have been mistaken in the past does not help us with that.

Some people may argue that since the team doctors have not been making mistakes, they might not need the device. However, we need to evaluate whether the device is effective in helping make the decision, not whether, till now, the doctors would have gained from the device. Here’s an example to help explain it:
Say, a mother asks her son to wear a helmet before riding his motorbike. The son refuses to wear the helmet citing the fact that he hasn’t received a head injury while riding his bike till date. However, not having needed a helmet till now does not indicate that the helmet is not effective in helping prevent injuries. The helmet is probably very well effective; it’s just that the son hasn’t needed it yet. However, the helmet may help him in the future.

Purport: Appear or claim to be or do something, especially falsely; profess. (source) In this context the “especially falsely” part is not applicable.


If you have any doubts regarding any part of this solution, please feel free to ask.