Medical Office Representative: At this time last year, 38% of our

Question

Medical Office Representative: At this time last year, 38% of our patients who did not get seen by their doctor at their scheduled appointment time did get seen within 10 minutes of that time. We then made some scheduling changes, and this year, 65% of our patients gave this same response. Clearly our doctors and staff have been able to increase the number of appointments that begin within 10 minutes of the appointment time.

Which of the following most clearly points to a logical flaw in the representative’s reasoning?

A. The representative was involved in making some of the scheduling changes that took place this year.
B. The people who did not get to see their doctors within 10 minutes of their appointment time could have also had appointments for which they did not have to wait more then 10 minutes.
C. The method used to determine when people got to see their doctors was checked by an outside agency.
D. The number of appointments this year that began more than 10 minutes late could have decreased substantially. 
E. People’s perception of how long they had to wait to see a doctor is sometimes inaccurate.

EMPOWER  gmat    CR Question Pack 2

Question 97: Patient Wait Times

48 Hour Answer & Explanation Window  
 Earn KUDOS!  Have your explanations evaluated to help boost your learning. Post your reasoning why the answer you chose is correct, and why the other 4 options are incorrect within 48 hours of this post.

Scroll Down For Official Explanation

◀ Question 96 
 ▶ Question 98 
 ⏏ CR Library Pack 2 Home

ntngocanh19 · Answer

The premise is about the percentage of patients that meet doctor in 10 minutes in their appointment increase from 38(last year) to 65% (this year) after changing schedule.
Conclusion: Doctor should increase the appointment that begin in 10 minute of appointment time.
At first glance, the premise all talk about the percentage. So it can be the flaw point. Pay attention to the answer choice that affect this percentage.

POE:

A. The representative was involved in making some of the scheduling changes that took place this year.
=> has no effect to the argument
B. The people who did not get to see their doctors within 10 minutes of their appointment time could have also had appointments for which they did not have to wait more then 10 minutes.
=> so we should increase the number of appointment begin in 10 minutes of appointment time => strengthen the argument
C. The method used to determine when people got to see their doctors was checked by an outside agency.
=> has no effect to the argument
 D. The number of appointments this year that began more than 10 minutes late could have decreased substantially.
=> CORRECT, it point out the percentage increase may not because of the increase in number of appointment meet in time but of the decrease in number of missing appointment.=> direct to the flaw of argument. 
E. People’s perception of how long they had to wait to see a doctor is sometimes inaccurate.
=> we do not challenge the fact in the argument

Hence I choose D.
 
Please point out, if I have any mistakes

Posted from my mobile device

minalgambhir · Answer

CONCLUSION - Doctors and staff have been able to increase the number of appointments that begin within 10 minutes of appointment time

ANSWER CHOICE ANALYSIS -

A) Doesn't matter
B) Not related
C) Doesn't matter who is checking the process
D) CORRECT - Maybe the appointments beyond ten minutes were shifted to lwithin 10 minutes
E) Can't question the data in the argument

winterschool · Answer

Medical Office Representative: At this time last year, 38% of our patients who did not get seen by their doctor at their scheduled appointment time did get seen within 10 minutes of that time. We then made some scheduling changes, and this year, 65% of our patients gave this same response. Clearly our doctors and staff have been able to increase the number of appointments that begin within 10 minutes of the appointment time.

Which of the following most clearly points to a logical flaw in the representative’s reasoning?

A. The representative was involved in making some of the scheduling changes that took place this year.  Incorrect

may be but it cant weakens argument

B.  The people who did not get to see their doctors within 10 minutes of their appointment time could have also had appointments for which they did not have to wait more then 10 minutes.   Correct

so their study was wrong, these patients responses was same this year as last year; than how can their study found more response; study based on wrong information

C. The method used to determine when people got to see their doctors was checked by an outside agency.  Incorrect

which method was used is not a fact

D. The number of appointments this year that began more than 10 minutes late could have decreased substantially.  Incorrect

as a result it support conclusion, it will increase number of appointments that begin within 10 minutes

E. People’s perception of how long they had to wait to see a doctor is sometimes inaccurate. Incorrect

People’s perception is irrelevant to argument

I think answer B

EMPOWERgmatVerbal · Answer

Official Explanation:

Medical Office Representative: At this time last year, 38% of our patients who did not get seen by their doctor at their scheduled appointment time did get seen within 10 minutes of that time. We then made some scheduling changes, and this year, 65% of our patients gave this same response. Clearly our doctors and staff have been able to increase the number of appointments that begin within 10 minutes of the appointment time.
 
 Which of the following most clearly points to a logical flaw in the representative’s reasoning? 
 
 A. The representative was involved in making some of the scheduling changes that took place this year.
B. The people who did not get to see their doctors within 10 minutes of their appointment time could have also had appointments for which they did not have to wait more then 10 minutes.
C. The method used to determine when people got to see their doctors was checked by an outside agency. 
 D. The number of appointments this year that began more than 10 minutes late could have decreased substantially.  
 E. People’s perception of how long they had to wait to see a doctor is sometimes inaccurate.

Question Type:   Logical Flaw
  Boil It Down:   Because the percentages of patients having to wait decreased after the scheduling changes, fewer numbers of patients have had to wait.
  Goal:    Find the flaw in the the representative’s argument that scheduling changes improved wait times.

Analysis:

General comments about flaw questions that involve numbers:  
 When a flaw question uses numbers in its move from premise(s) to conclusion, our suspicions should be raised. We should ask whether the numbers are hiding a potential flaw or weakness in the argument.
 
 Argument structure: 
(P) = Premise/Evidence/Support (C) = Conclusion
 
P1: Changes to scheduling were made
P2: Percentages of patients having to not wait improved
C: The improvements, seen in greater numbers of patients not having to wait, were caused by the scheduling change

The office representative makes a causal argument based on noticing a change in the percentages of patients who did not have to wait more than 10 minutes after scheduling changes were made. There are several flaws in this argument.

First, the representative uses a post hoc ergo propter hoc argument (after this, therefore because of this.) Just because improvements were noticed after the scheduling changes, this does not mean that the scheduling changes were the cause of the improvements.

Second, when comparing two different times, we must be sure that we are comparing like to like. Even though the office is comparing similar times of the year, they must make sure that they are comparing similar patient numbers and patient types and cases.

Related to this second flaw, is a third flaw. As mentioned under the general comments, we should be suspicious of numbers used in any flaw question. In this case the premises use percentages to support a conclusion that deals with total numbers. Percentages and totals are very different. If the total number of patients was significantly less after the changes, the increased percentages may be due to fewer patients and not due to the schedule changes.
 
The argument deals with the relationship between two factors: the changes in percentages of patients not having to wait due to the scheduling changes and the total numbers of patients having to wait. Answer choices that deal with neither of these factors will be irrelevant. Understanding this fact about the crux of the argument will help identify the answer choices that are irrelevant.
 
A. The representative was involved in making some of the scheduling changes that took place this year.
 Incorrect. The argument deals with the relationship between two factors: the changes in percentages of patients not having to wait due to the scheduling changes and the total numbers of patients having to wait. The fact that the representative was involved in making these scheduling changes has no bearing on either of these two factors. As such, this answer choice is irrelevant. 
 
B. The people who did not get to see their doctors within 10 minutes of their appointment time could have also had appointments for which they did not have to wait more than 10 minutes.
 Incorrect. The argument deals with the relationship between two factors: the changes in percentages of patients not having to wait due to the scheduling changes and the total numbers of patients having to wait. The fact that some of the patients who had to wait may not have had to wait on other occasions has no bearing on either of these two factors. Specifically, this fact has no bearing on the improvement in percentages that occurred. As such, this answer choice is irrelevant. 
 
C. The method used to determine when people got to see their doctors was checked by an outside agency.
 Incorrect. If anything, answer choice C strengthens the medical office representative’s argument. Given that the representative is part of the office, s/he may be biased. Having an outside agency involved would help remove any potential bias. 
 
D. The number of appointments this year that began more than 10 minutes late could have decreased substantially. 
 Correct. This answer choice exposes the flawed move from percentages to totals used in the argument. If the number of appointments substantially decreased, then the improvements in patient waiting times might be due to this fact and not due to the scheduling changes. This answer choice offers an alternative cause that could explain the improved percentages. Rather than the improvements being caused by the schedule changes, the improvements in percentages were caused by a decrease in total number of patients. By merely looking at improvements in percentages rather than looking at improvements in totals, the argument masks this alternative cause. 
 
E. People’s perception of how long they had to wait to see a doctor is sometimes inaccurate.
 Incorrect. The argument deals with the relationship between two factors: the changes in percentages of patients not having to wait due to the scheduling changes and the total numbers of patients having to wait. Patient perceptions would not help explain why the change in percentages occurred from the previous year. As such, this answer choice is irrelevant.

Don’t study for the GMAT. Train for it.

Shikhar22 · Answer

Hi. But the option D, mentions about appointments that began later than 10 minutes. We are focusing on appointments that began later than their original time but began less than 10 minute later. The number of people beyond 10 minute can be small but the number of people between those two intervals could still be huge. Hence, I think there could be a flaw, in the answer choice above. I’m open to be corrected. Thanks

Posted from my mobile device

Varuag93 · Answer

EMPOWERgmatVerbal 
While analyzing option D, I considered the possibility that the number of appointments starting more than 10 minutes late decreased because the staff implemented scheduling changes, successfully rescheduling these appointments to start within the allotted time. This interpretation made it seem like a strengthening point for the argument. For instance, let's assume out of 100 appointments, 37 started within 10 minutes, while the rest started on time or later. The decrease in appointments starting beyond 10 minutes could indicate an improvement in the efficiency of managing these appointments. It would have been more evident if the option had specified whether these appointments were canceled, rescheduled, or if patients stopped waiting after 10 minutes. Nonetheless, the decrease in such appointments creates some confusion but still seems supportive.

Can you please guide me on how to read such tricky options correctly and avoid falling into traps? What adjustments should I make in my approach or mindset to think accurately?

Medical Office Representative: At this time last year, 38% of our

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

Medical Office Representative: At this time last year, 38% of our

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