Last visit was: 20 Jul 2024, 09:28 It is currently 20 Jul 2024, 09:28
Close
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
SORT BY:
Date
Tags:
Show Tags
Hide Tags
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Posts: 94430
Own Kudos [?]: 642519 [11]
Given Kudos: 86708
Send PM
Most Helpful Reply
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Posts: 94430
Own Kudos [?]: 642519 [4]
Given Kudos: 86708
Send PM
General Discussion
Intern
Intern
Joined: 12 Apr 2021
Posts: 30
Own Kudos [?]: 34 [0]
Given Kudos: 15
Location: India
Send PM
Intern
Intern
Joined: 26 Aug 2021
Posts: 12
Own Kudos [?]: 3 [0]
Given Kudos: 1
Location: Italy
Send PM
Re: A physician has a duty to see to the health and best medical interests [#permalink]
Look for the conclusion:

A physician has a duty to see to the health and best medical interests of the patient. On the other hand, the patient has a right to be fully informed about any negative findings concerning the patient’s health. When this duty conflicts with this right, the right should prevail since it is a basic right. Anything else carries the risk of treating the patient as a mere object, not as a person.

The conclusion drawn above follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?


(A) All persons have a right to accept or reject any medical procedures proposed by a physician. -- Irrilevant

(B) Some actions are right independently of the consequences that might ensue.-- Irrilevant

(C) Because only persons have rights, objects do not have rights.

(D) A person’s basic rights should never be violated.

(E) In medicine, the patient’s basic right to information is stronger than most other rights.-- Irrilevant

I think that once you have eliminated the irrilevant & easy-to-spot answer choices you can apply the negation technique to C & D.

(D)A person’s basic rights should be violated. -- Yehhh the conclusion now is destroyed!!
CEO
CEO
Joined: 07 Mar 2019
Posts: 2623
Own Kudos [?]: 1870 [0]
Given Kudos: 763
Location: India
WE:Sales (Energy and Utilities)
Send PM
Re: A physician has a duty to see to the health and best medical interests [#permalink]
A physician has a duty to see to the health and best medical interests of the patient. On the other hand, the patient has a right to be fully informed about any negative findings concerning the patient’s health. When this duty conflicts with this right, the right should prevail since it is a basic right. Anything else carries the risk of treating the patient as a mere object, not as a person.

The conclusion drawn above follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?


(A) All persons have a right to accept or reject any medical procedures proposed by a physician. - WRONG. Acceptance and rejection is not discussed. It is about information of negatives.

(B) Some actions are right independently of the consequences that might ensue. - WRONG. Again diverts.

(C) Because only persons have rights, objects do not have rights. - WRONG. Problem is with 'because' as causation confusing is created that leads to non-core issue of the argument.

(D) A person’s basic rights should never be violated. - CORRECT. Does not that evident enough though.

(E) In medicine, the patient’s basic right to information is stronger than most other rights. - WRONG. For comparing it is wrong as it diverts from core of the argument.

Answer D.
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Posts: 94430
Own Kudos [?]: 642519 [0]
Given Kudos: 86708
Send PM
Re: A physician has a duty to see to the health and best medical interests [#permalink]
Expert Reply
Bunuel wrote:
A physician has a duty to see to the health and best medical interests of the patient. On the other hand, the patient has a right to be fully informed about any negative findings concerning the patient’s health. When this duty conflicts with this right, the right should prevail since it is a basic right. Anything else carries the risk of treating the patient as a mere object, not as a person.

The conclusion drawn above follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?


(A) All persons have a right to accept or reject any medical procedures proposed by a physician.

(B) Some actions are right independently of the consequences that might ensue.

(C) Because only persons have rights, objects do not have rights.

(D) A person’s basic rights should never be violated.

(E) In medicine, the patient’s basic right to information is stronger than most other rights.


EXPLANATION FROM POWER SCORE



The author claims that when a physician's duty to act in the best interests of the patient conflicts with the patient's right to be informed about any negative findings concerning her health, the patient's right should prevail since it is a basic right. Since it is unclear why basic rights take precedence over physician's duties, you need to look for an answer choice that establishes that fact. The last sentence of the stimulus is irrelevant and meant to slow you down, not help you understand the question.

Answer choice (A): Having the right to accept or reject a procedure is immaterial to the task of establishing the precedence of basic rights over duties.

Answer choice (B): The correctness of some actions does not mean they are "basic rights." This answer choice conflates two meanings of the word "right"; one is an adjective, the other a noun. Furthermore, for the conclusion to be proven as true, all actions that enact basic rights must be "right," i.e. must take precedence over duties, not just some actions. At best, this would be an assumption for the argument, not a way to establish it as true.

Answer choice (C): The rights of objects are immaterial to this conclusion.

Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice. If basic rights are never meant to be violated and they sometimes conflict with someone's duties, the rights should prevail. When added to the premises of the argument, this answer choice proves the conclusion and is therefore correct.

Answer choice (E): This is perhaps the strongest decoy answer in this question. However, the fact that the basic right to information is stronger than most other rights does not establish that it is stronger than most other duties. And even if it were, "most" is not good enough; for the conclusion to be proven as true, the patient's basic right to information must be stronger than all duties that might arise in the context of a the doctor-patient relationship.
User avatar
Intern
Intern
Joined: 23 Jun 2024
Posts: 6
Own Kudos [?]: 0 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
Re: A physician has a duty to see to the health and best medical interests [#permalink]
The conclusion logically follows if it is assumed that the patient's basic right to information is stronger than most other rights, as indicated in option (E). This assumption ensures that the physician's duty to inform the patient prevails over other considerations.
Director
Director
Joined: 17 Aug 2009
Posts: 738
Own Kudos [?]: 50 [0]
Given Kudos: 26
Send PM
Re: A physician has a duty to see to the health and best medical interests [#permalink]
Understanding the argument - ­
A physician has a duty to see to the health and best medical interests of the patient. On the other hand, the patient has a right to be fully informed about any negative findings concerning the patient’s health. When this duty conflicts with this right, the right should prevail since it is a basic right. Anything else carries the risk of treating the patient as a mere object, not as a person.

The conclusion is that patient rights should prevail. 

The conclusion drawn above follows logically if which one of the following is assumed? - We need the minimum condition. 


(A) All persons have a right to accept or reject any medical procedures proposed by a physician. - out of scope. 

(B) Some actions are right independently of the consequences that might ensue. - Philosophically true, but the scope is between Doctors' duties and patients' rights; patient rights should prevail. This option, at best, is out of scope. 

(C) Because only persons have rights, objects do not have rights. - Out of scope. It doesn't even deal with the conclusion. 

(D) A person’s basic rights should never be violated. - ok. Its an opinion but a minimum condition. 

(E) In medicine, the patient’s basic right to information is stronger than most other rights. - This comparison is out of scope. 
GMAT Club Bot
Re: A physician has a duty to see to the health and best medical interests [#permalink]
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6985 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
236 posts
CR Forum Moderator
824 posts