adkikani wrote:
Hi Experts,
I had a tough time convincing myself that OA C is correct. My argument is since we are already given in passage that custom replacements should last longer it indirectly implies that there is relatively proportion by which repeat surgery are to be done for custom replacements than compared to ordinary replacements. Are not we supposed to bring new information (for evaluation of answer choices) in Evaluate Qs ?
Argument understanding:
Fact: Although CPBR cost 2x than ordinary replacement
Conclusion: CPBR are cost effective
Fact 2, supporting conclusion: CPBR shall be cost effective because surgery and recovery time will be less and CPBR needs less repeat surgery, which in turns lead to less utilization of hospital beds and causing smaller dent in patient's pockets.
Let me know if my understanding is correct.
Hi Adkikani,
You are right in your understanding that the correct answer to an evaluate question/consideration should bring in information that is not already given in the argument, because only then can it provide
more clarity on the situation.
Now, as per this argument, we know that the author says:
1. CPBR =
more than 2x of OR - I have underlined more because in your understanding, you seem to have missed it.
2. However, CPBR
should still be more effective.
3. So, because the author deduces point 2, despite point 1, he goes on to give the reason.
4. Reason: 1. surgery and recovery time will go down + 2. CPBR should last longer --> reducing the need for further hospital stays.
5. Fundamentally, the author says that Reason 1 and 2 are areas in which there cost benefits will be realized for CPBR
Notice one thing, the author just says that that CPBR should last
longer. To understand the implication of this word, consider an example.
Let's say your friend advises you to buy clothes from a particular store that sells the kind of clothes you like but at more than 2 times the price your usual store sells clothes at. Your friend says that despite this jump in price, the more expensive clothes will be worth it. The reason he cites is that the material used in the more expensive garments is of excellent quality and, therefore, you will need to buy new clothes less frequently than you have to right now.
What's the first thing that comes to your mind when someone makes such a pitch? If you take your friend's consideration on face value, you will be tempted to ask him - OK, but how much less frequently? Do you mean to say that the frequency will decrease by half? Or less than that?
Do you see the line of thought above?
Let me know if you need a little more push in the right direction. I shall do my best to clarify it further.
Cheers!