Dr. Kim: Electronic fetal monitors, now routinely used in hospital del

Question

Dr. Kim: Electronic fetal monitors, now routinely used in hospital delivery rooms to check fetal heartbeat, are more intrusive than ordinary stethoscopes and do no more to improve the chances that a healthy baby will be born. Therefore, the additional cost of electronic monitoring is unjustified and such monitoring should be discontinued.

Dr. Anders: I disagree. Although you and I know that both methods are capable of providing the same information, electronic monitoring has been well worth the cost. Doctors now know the warning signs they need to listen for with stethoscopes, but only because of what was learned from using electronic monitors.

As a reply to Dr. Kim’s argument, Dr. Anders’ response is inadequate because it

(A) misses the point at issue

(B) assumes what it sets out to prove

(C) confuses high cost with high quality

(D) overestimates the importance of technology to modem medicine

(E) overlooks the fact that a procedure can be extensively used without being the best procedure available

Bunuel · Answer

Check out TWIN Strengthen question here: https://gmatclub.com/forum/dr-kim-elect ... 15488.html

naul · Answer

OA is A for your convenience (according to powerscore)

kntombat · Answer

nightblade354  why is A correct ?

Saasingh · Answer

Hi. I am not an expert but I can share my reasoning with you.

Dr. Kim: Electronic fetal monitors, now routinely used in hospital delivery rooms to check fetal heartbeat, are more intrusive than ordinary stethoscopes and do no more to improve the chances that a healthy baby will be born. Therefore, the additional cost of electronic monitoring is unjustified and such monitoring should be discontinued.

Dr. Anders: I disagree. Although you and I know that both methods are capable of providing the same information, electronic monitoring has been well worth the cost. Doctors now know the warning signs they need to listen for with stethoscopes, but only because of what was learned from using electronic monitors.

What is really the point that Dr. Kim addresses? His conclusion is the line after "therefore". 
  Therefore, the additional cost of electronic monitoring is unjustified and such monitoring should be discontinued.  
So essentially, Kim says that electronic monitoring SHOULD BE DISCONITNUED henceforth. And she gives reasons for that in the passage.

Now what Anders says is that Dr's know what they know today BECAUSE OF electronic monitoring.

If you break it down, its visible that Anders is just talking a whole different thing. He does not address on the point whether we should discontinue the use of electronic monitoring or not. He just says, it is/was helpful. But, he doesn't mention anything more than that. Well perhaps it indeed helped Dr's know what they know today, but should we stop it? Should we continue? He didn't even address that.
 
(A) misses the point at issue

kntombat · Answer

Saasingh , Thank you for the prompt reply and explanation.

CEdward · Answer

I don't know that I agree (with respect). I actually think Anders does in fact address the point.

First, what's the point? That the additional cost of electronic monitoring is unjustified and such monitoring should be discontinued.

Dr. Anders is saying well...maybe it's not unjustified b/c without the monitor, the things that docs can do with the stethoscope wouldn't be possible (or the stethoscope would not be as useful perhaps b/c it might miss some things).

So...we can infer that he/she thinks they should not be discontinued.

I am partial toward B.

Thoughts on B?

kntombat

sssanskaar · Answer

No my dear friend. Dr. Anders defends her argument around the point that whether Electronic monitoring is worth the cost or not. Whereas the point/conclusion in Dr. Kim's argument is that even if the Electronic monitoring is worth the cost, it does nothing more than an ordinary stethoscope. On top of that the former is costly and hence, should be discontinued.

This part in bold hasn't been addressed by Dr. Anders. Hope it's clear now.

CEdward · Answer

I still don't see it. How does Anders not address the discontinuation? He/she states clearly that the monitor provides an advantage that K did not consider...one that would justify keeping the monitor around.

paramjit_das · Answer

Hi @CEdward,it misses the main point because Dr K's argument is about electronic monitoring not adding any substantive value from this point forward - hence 'should be discontinued' (from, say today, onward). Dr Anders' argument,on the other hand, is about electronic monitoring adding some value "in the past". However, Dr K's argument was not about electronic monitoring being useless throughout, just that they are no longer required at this "point in time", and this time period is not addressed by Dr.Anders.

To clarify, consider the following argument -

John: iPhones are not worth purchasing anymore, because most of the functionalities present in an iPhone are available at a cheaper price point.

Sam: I disagree. Most of the functionalities in the other smartphones today have been based off of or replicated from iPhones.

Here, Sam does not address John's main point that iPhones are not worth purchasing "anymore" (i.e., John does not say that iPhones were not worth purchasing "in the past").

Hope this clarifies.

Posted from my mobile device

Mavisdu1017 · Answer

Hello expert,
OA confused me. 
Dr K’s conclusion includes 2 issues: (1) cost of electronic monitoring is unjustified, (2) electronic monitoring should be discontinue. Dr A addressed one of Dr K’s issue— —worth the cost, but does not address another issue. So why A is correct?
Welcome to chime in and thanks in advance

AndrewN · Answer

I see a lot of confusion on this question, and since no Expert has offered a full treatment, I thought I would take up the call.

Note, first, that we are told in the question stem that  Dr. Anders' response is inadequate , so we are looking for a logical flaw. We have to pay careful attention to  Dr. Kim's  argument to grasp how Dr. Anders has failed to respond in a logical manner.

Dr. Kim outlines two drawbacks to using  electronic fetal monitors  over  ordinary stethoscopes : the monitors are  more intrusive  and  do no more to improve the chances that a healthy baby will be born .   The argument is two-pronged: the extra cost of using the monitors is  unjustified , and their use  should be discontinued .

How does Dr. Anders respond? Well, first by disagreeing, then by asserting that  electronic monitoring has been well worth the cost . The support comes from the fact that the monitors inform doctors of  the warning signs they need to listen for with stethoscopes .

Does Dr. Anders address either of the two drawbacks that Dr. Kim mentioned? No. There is no mention of how intrusive the monitors may be, or of how the chances that a healthy baby will be born will improve. Rather, Dr. Anders sidesteps these concerns and focuses on  warning signs . But, of course, warning signs are indicators of  current health , so the likelihood of a healthy baby  being born  is unaffected. In short, this answer choice is fully justifiable.

Not at all. Dr. Anders states a position and then backs up that position with an argument. That argument may not touch on the necessary points to form a proper counterargument to Dr. Kim, but there is no assumption made on the part of Dr. Anders.

Dr. Anders starts with a concession in  although  and says that  both methods —i.e. the cheaper one and the more expensive one— are capable of providing the same information , so, if anything, Dr. Anders does the opposite of conflating the two. The reasoning that follows to support the argument does not correlate cost and quality.

First, I have corrected the typo in  modem medicine . But, as we examined above, Dr. Anders concedes that the high-tech monitor is little better than the stethoscope at providing essential information. It is just that in this view, the monitors allow doctors to better search for warning signs using the low-tech method.

The  best  anything is beside the point and has nothing to do with either argument. At issue is whether the use of these monitors is justified. Dr. Kim provides two arguments against their continued use, while Dr. Anders provides one reason to support such use (without touching on the argument made by Dr. Kim).

Perhaps the question and answer choices make more sense now. As always, good luck with your studies.

- Andrew

Suruchim12 · Answer

Hi,

I still don't get why A makes the most sense. If Dr. Anders, does provide a reason as to how the electrical monitors actually alert (through warning signs) doctors to using stethoscopes which eventually might help assess the healthy-ness of a fetus, doesnt that actually address Dr. Kim's point on the monitors not doing anything different from stethoscopes?

I dont see the other answers being great either tbh. To me E came the closest because Dr. A is definitely overlooking the fact that just because stethoscopes don't provide "warning signs'' like the monitors before an actual stethoscope needs to be used anyway to figure the healthy heartbeat (or what not!) that justifies the cost of the monitors.

Basically, using only the stethoscope might not be the BEST procedure but that doesn't justify the cost of another equipment that adds minimal value (only warning signs according to Dr. A, which eventually needs to be checked with a stethoscope anyway!). So according to me he really hasnt missed the point (A) but overlooked the fact that the relation between effectiveness and cost as pointed out by Dr. Kim earlier. (E)

Thoughts?

Thoughts?

Mavisdu1017 · Answer

AndrewN  Hello sir/expert,
Thanks for your input, but I have the same doubt as the post writer above. Since the monitor can provide warning sign, it ought to be improve the chance of a healthy baby being born. At least the effect of monitor is not totally same with that of an oridinary stethoscope. And that’s why DR. A said the monitor is well worth its cost. Mind to address this issue further? Much thanks.

AndrewN · Answer

The part I have highlighted above is an inaccurate assessment on your part,  Suruchim12 . Dr. Kim makes no such point that monitors do not do anything different from stethoscopes. Look at the passage again. This is why you have to be careful about sticking to exactly what it says.

The monitors do one thing differently, according to K: they  are more intrusive . Sure, the monitors cannot  improve the chances that a healthy baby will be born , any more than can the use of stethoscopes, but if anything, this is a non-function. It is merely a criticism of the use of the more expensive electronic fetal monitors.

You seem to have lost sight of the question stem, which starts,  As a reply to Dr. Kim's argument . K makes no mention of warning signs. Rather, A has introduced this new consideration that has no effect on the argument that K actually made, on the premises used to support that argument.

Then why chase an answer that uses such language? You should not have to negotiate, especially with an absolute condition. It seems as though A has, in fact,    the point , the  reasoning  behind the argument K provides, as I discussed in my earlier post.

Doctors might have to think less about  the warning signs they need to listen for with stethoscopes  if they use the monitors, but, first, what are we to make of the concession A offers that  both methods are capable of providing the same information , and how does such knowledge of warning signs affect the outcome,  the chances that a healthy baby will be born ? If your doctor tells you your pulse is too high, you still have to do something about it, and you may or may not change your lifestyle. It is purely speculative to say that such knowledge  ought to improve the chance of a healthy baby being born . It is just as likely that nothing can be done, and the baby, healthy or not, will be born, all the same. This is exactly the sort of associative reasoning that can get you into trouble in CR, not to mention upper-level questions such as this one.

Understand, I am not out to criticize anyone. My goal is to provide clarity on questions so that the entire community may benefit. CR questions (or their Logical Reasoning counterparts from the LSAT) are designed with a straight-arrow logic in mind, and until you can appreciate that point, you will keep chasing somewhat related thoughts that cause you to miss questions, and you will not understand why you keep missing them. And if these 700-level LSAT questions are proving too difficult for you, why not switch back to official GMAT™ questions, of which there are more than a thousand, and why not look to master 500- and 600-level questions first? I mean this not as an insult, but in my experience, by the time someone can get to about 90 percent accuracy on Medium-level CR questions, that person is capable of tackling just about any Hard CR question because the fundamentals are already in place. (The skillset does not trickle down, contrary to popular belief.)

- Andrew

unraveled · Answer

Dr. Kim: Electronic fetal monitors, now routinely used in hospital delivery rooms to check fetal heartbeat, are more intrusive than ordinary stethoscopes and do no more to improve the chances that a healthy baby will be born. Therefore, the additional cost of electronic monitoring is unjustified and such monitoring should be discontinued.

Dr. Anders: I disagree. Although you and I know that both methods are capable of providing the same information, electronic monitoring has been well worth the cost. Doctors now know the warning signs they need to listen for with stethoscopes, but only because of what was learned from using electronic monitors.

As a reply to Dr. Kim’s argument, Dr. Anders’ response is inadequate because it

(A) misses the point at issue - CORRECT. The two arguments are different from each other. K talks of issues related with EFM whereas A talks about its benefits. Had A addressed the issues of EFM well, it may have been better countered.

(B) assumes what it sets out to prove - WRONG. Nothing is assumed; the argument of Dr. Anders in itself is complete and fulfilling. Issue is it misses the core of Dr. Kim's argument.

(C) confuses high cost with high quality - WRONG. Quality is not in scope.

(D) overestimates the importance of technology to modem medicine - WRONG. Modern medicine is beyond scope.

(E) overlooks the fact that a procedure can be extensively used without being the best procedure available - WRONG. 2nd best for me. "Best" is not known here so anything that refers to "best" would not be sufficient to make a claim as it is done in this choice.

Answer A.

Dr. Kim: Electronic fetal monitors, now routinely used in hospital del

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

Dr. Kim: Electronic fetal monitors, now routinely used in hospital del

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