Doctors must be given more comprehensive protection against

Question

Doctors must be given more comprehensive protection against malpractice claims. Such protection would encourage research hospitals to try innovative new treatments, which often lead to valuable breakthroughs in medical science.

Which of the following conclusions can most properly be drawn from the information above?

A. Stronger protections against claims of malpractice tend to benefit healthcare providers as well as research hospitals. 
B. Breakthroughs in medical science are likely to be accompanied by the creation of more jobs in medical research.
C. Research hospitals will try innovative new treatments less frequently unless there are stronger protections against claims of malpractice.
D. Stronger protections against claims of malpractice would stimulate breakthroughs in the field of medical science.
E. The weakness of the current protections against malpractice claims has been a cause of stagnation in medical science.

This is a  CR Butler Question

Check the links to other Butler Projects:
 
  Data Sufficiency Butler  
  Problem Solving Butler  
  Sentence Correction Butler  
  Reading Comprehension Butler  
  Integrated Reasoning Butler

officiisestyad · Answer

The argument says:

If doctors get more malpractice protection,

then research hospitals would try more innovative treatments,

and innovative treatments often lead to breakthroughs.

So the chain is:

More protection --> more innovative treatments --> more breakthroughs

Answer:  Choice D

laborumplaceat · Answer

So the supported conclusion is simply the chain of reasoning: more protection → more innovation → more breakthroughs.-> DI should be correct according to me.
C is a bit too strong that's why not correct.

aditya1818 · Answer

We are given to find the conclusion of the stimuli, that is, option will be the heart of the passage and so the whole stimuli will support the option and thus draw the main idea of the stimuli. 
This question again teaches me to pay close attention to Question stem always.

A. Stronger protections against claims of malpractice tend to benefit healthcare providers as well as research hospitals.- Incorrect: I see the main point should definitely include breakthrough in medical science.  
B. Breakthroughs in medical science are likely to be accompanied by the creation of more jobs in medical research.- Incorrect: Does include breakthrough but from where does more jobs came to the scene, out of scope. 
C. Research hospitals will try innovative new treatments less frequently unless there are stronger protections against claims of malpractice.- Incorrect: Didn't include breakthrough and one more important thing, for infer/must be true/conclusion questions, always observe the tone of the stimuli. This option breaks the tone as it takes to the extreme side by presenting "will" in the option.  
D. Stronger protections against claims of malpractice would stimulate breakthroughs in the field of medical science.- Correct: includes breakthrough, includes the overall heart and tone is same as the stimuli. 
E. The weakness of the current protections against malpractice claims has been a cause of stagnation in medical science.- Incorrect: New information is brought here which is the stagnation which was never talked in the stimuli.

AbhishekP220108 · Answer

Its a good explanation, but it will be better If you try in elaborative way

AbhishekP220108 · Answer

The argument establishes a direct  causal chain  leading from stronger legal protections to scientific advancement:

More Protection-->encourages Innovative Treatments-->often leads to Valuable Breakthroughs

This chain logically supports the idea that the first element (stronger protection) would lead to the final element (breakthroughs).

Analysis of the Options
 
  A. Stronger protections against claims of malpractice tend to benefit healthcare providers as well as research hospitals. 
 
  INCORRECT.  The argument only mentions the benefit to  research hospitals  (trying new treatments). We cannot conclude a benefit for general healthcare providers.  
 
  B. Breakthroughs in medical science are likely to be accompanied by the creation of more jobs in medical research. 
 
  INCORRECT.  This introduces an entirely new, unsupported topic: job creation.  
 
  C. Research hospitals will try innovative new treatments less frequently unless there are stronger protections against claims of malpractice. 
 
  INCORRECT.  This is a common trap. The argument says protection  would encourage  innovation. It does  not  say a  lack  of protection is the  only  thing preventing it, or that they  currently  try treatments "less frequently." It only addresses what the  increased  protection would achieve.  
 
  D. Stronger protections against claims of malpractice would stimulate breakthroughs in the field of medical science. 
 
  CORRECT.  This conclusion simply connects the start of the causal chain (Stronger protection) to the end of the chain (Breakthroughs/Stimulation), using the links provided in the premises.  
 
  E. The weakness of the current protections against malpractice claims has been a cause of stagnation in medical science. 
 
  INCORRECT.  This is an overly strong claim. The premises state that stronger protection  would encourage  innovation. This is forward-looking. We cannot infer that the  current  situation is necessarily causing total  stagnation  (a halt in progress); it might just be slowing things down. The argument is about potential  benefit , not current  failure .

Dereno · Answer

The question begins with a demand : Doctors be given more comprehensive protection against malpractice claims.

The term “  more comprehensive ” connotes a wholistic or complete fool proof protection, with no ifs and buts. This means, there is an existing protection against malpractice claims, and that is not protecting the doctors to 100%.

So, the next question is what happens or what is the doctor losing if there is not a comprehensive protection against malpractice ?

The answer lies in the subsequent statements. With comprehensive protection, the doctors have a chance to try new innovative works, which OFTEN lead to more breakthrough in the field of medicine science. This provides an opportunity for the doctors to try more novel ways of treatment, thereby claiming protection for malpractice.

Which of the following conclusions can most properly be drawn from the information above?

A. Stronger protections against claims of malpractice tend to benefit healthcare providers as well as research hospitals.

The option speaks about health care providers, which includes a larger number of subsets within the medical profession. The question speaks about doctors and the option speaks in a generalised tone. Hence, Wrong.

B. Breakthroughs in medical science are likely to be accompanied by the creation of more jobs in medical research.

The creation of more jobs is not a question of debate. Hence, Wrong.

C. Research hospitals will try innovative new treatments less frequently unless there are stronger protections against claims of malpractice.

This explains the frequency of innovative treatments that can be done in the absence of stronger protection. The problem is not how frequent the new innovative treatment methods are done. Hence, wrong.

D. Stronger protections against claims of malpractice would stimulate breakthroughs in the field of medical science.

This correctly identifies the conclusion, that in presence of a stronger protection against malpractice claims, this will encourage (stimulate) breakthrough in field of medical science.

E. The weakness of the current protections against malpractice claims has been a cause of stagnation in medical science.

There has not been an evidence citing single instance of stagnation in medical science research in the absence of protection clause. Hence, wrong.

Option D

ExpertsGlobal5 · Answer

Video Explanation:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lT34ss-8MOY

Doctors must be given more comprehensive protection against

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Doctors must be given more comprehensive protection against

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards