Hospital executive: At a recent conference on nonprofit

Question

Hospital executive: At a recent conference on nonprofit management, several computer experts maintained that the most significant threat faced by large institutions such as universities and hospitals is unauthorized access to confidential data. In light of this testimony, we should make the protection of our clients’ confidentiality our highest priority.

The hospital executive’s argument is most vulnerable to which one of the following objections?

(A) The argument confuses the causes of a problem with the appropriate solutions to that problem.

(B) The argument relies on the testimony of experts whose expertise is not shown to be sufficiently broad to support their general claim.

(C) The argument assumes that a correlation between two phenomena is evidence that one is the cause of the other.

(D) The argument draws a general conclusion about a group based on data about an unrepresentative sample of that group.

(E) The argument infers that a property belonging to large institutions belongs to all institutions.

Source: LSAT

souvik101990 · Accepted Answer

I will go with B.
Computers expert, though knowing a lot about IT and security, are probably not the best experts on what the "highest priority" of hospital execs should be. The priorities should be based on business strategies, trial runs, experience etc which certainly is much more convoluted.
Whats the OA?

vomhorizon · Answer

The OA here is B ...

The correct choice reads :   The argument relies on the testimony of experts whose expertise is not shown to be sufficiently broad to support their general claim.

The stimulus mentions COMPUTER EXPERTS.. Although it is not unreasonable to assume that computer experts would be well versed with computer problems, it is inaccurate to assume that the computer experts would also be specialists in the field of hospital and university management...nor is it shown anywhere that these COMPUTER experts are credible experts on what constitutes the biggest threats to these institutes. If these computer experts were shown to be experts in HEALTHCARE IT, or any allied discipline the argument may well have been more logical, but in the absence of any proof of them (the computer experts) having any expertise regarding hospitals and universities we cannot take their knowledge about computers in general to cover all aspects of all industries where computers might be useful. That is akin to asking a computer expert who is a master at fixing computer hardware to evaluate the problems with Walmart's IT based supply chain ... Clearly his/her opinion will not be considered credible unless he could show his expertise in the field of retail based logistics & IT..

shanmugamgsn · Answer

+1 for B

Pre-phrase : As souvik101990 mentioned General Computer experts need not be experts in specified Data Securities..

(B) The argument relies on the testimony of experts
whose expertise is not shown to be sufficiently
broad to support their general claim.
-- Correct ---

PUNEETSCHDV · Answer

OA posted is strange. first time seen that the capability of experts/critics/some or anyone making claim is challenged. DO you have OE ?

cledgard · Answer

They are computer experts, not hospital experts. Their opinion is not being challenged; the hospital executive’s is. 
B is correct.

Abhishek009 · Answer

Hospital Executive is drawing conclusion on the recommendations of computer experts , without justifying the applicability of the issue the the Hospital in question...

It may be such that the general applicability of unauthorized access to confidential data may not be a matter of concern for the Hospital ( Perhaps it has state of the art technology to protect such data)...
  
Thus the Hospital executive blindly relies on the testimony of Computer experts , without considering the applicability in this context... Hence answer will be (B)..

abrakadabra21 · Answer

D can't be correct.

Some may think:

the argument is jumping from large institutions such as universities and hospitals to "clients". 
how do we know whats true for universities and hospitals is true for CLIENTS also. We know nothing about industry client belong to.

But this is said by Hospital executive so client must be relevant to hospital industry.

But why B is correct: 
when we see computer expert so that means they know what they are doing. why do the argument has to prove their expertise. THEIR EXPERTISE IS NOT IN THE QUESTION. You have to accept the premises at face-value and not attack the premise but conclusion.

pikolo2510 · Answer

adkikani 
 gmatexam439 
 nightblade354

Can you share your thoughts on B vs D?

D says that the argument makes a conclusion about a group  (hospital clients/Hospitals)  based on unrepresentative sample of that group

If the conclusion is drawn on a very small set of hospitals, then the conclusion may be incorrectly drawn

This is also a possible weakener. Can you help me identify wwhere I am going wrong?

nightblade354 · Answer

pikolo2510 ,

As far as I can tell, the reason B is wrong is because of the following: (D) The argument draws a general conclusion about a group based on  data about an unrepresentative sample of that group .

How do we know the data isn't representative? All we know is that there are a few experts talking about certain ideas. Their data could be every hospital in the world, it could be just one. Because we don't know, this answer must be eliminated. Does this help?

gmatexam439 · Answer

Hi  pikolo2510 ,

Hospital executive: At a recent conference on nonprofit management, several computer experts maintained that the most significant threat faced by large institutions such as universities and hospitals is unauthorized access to confidential data. In light of this testimony, we should make the protection of our clients’ confidentiality our highest priority.

The hospital executive’s argument is most vulnerable to which one of the following objections?

(B) The argument relies on the testimony of experts whose expertise is not shown to be sufficiently broad to support their general claim.
 --This sounds good because the argument is talking about computer experts. Since I am an It guy I can relate to this because even though I might have explicit IT knowledge I am not an expert in Networking and Security. Thus, the argument needs to substantiate that the experts are "security" experts.

(D) The argument draws a general conclusion about a group based on data about an unrepresentative sample of that group. 
--This is irrelevant in the question at hand. The argument states nothing about the sample of universities. Neither the argument is about a scenario that might require sampling.

You might want to look at this question from another angle. The conclusion is "  we should make the protection of our clients’ confidentiality our highest priority  " and you need to weaken this. How can you do that? Even if the sample isn't correct the conclusion may or may not stand. Thus "D" is a neutral statement. On the other hand, option "B" is true would definitely weaken the analysis put forth by the "experts".

I hope that helps !!

unraveled · Answer

Hospital executive: At a recent conference on nonprofit management, several computer experts maintained that the most significant threat faced by large institutions such as universities and hospitals is unauthorized access to confidential data. In light of this testimony, we should make the protection of our clients’ confidentiality our highest priority.

The hospital executive’s argument is most vulnerable to which one of the following objections?

(A) The argument confuses the causes of a problem with the appropriate solutions to that problem. - WRONG. Passage rightly does so - to the point conclusion, whether right or wrong its a different case.

(B) The argument relies on the testimony of experts whose  expertise is not shown to be sufficiently broad  to support their general claim. - CORRECT. Computer experts'expertise can be one of the factors to take such a decision but not the sole one.

(C) The argument assumes that a correlation between two phenomena is evidence that  one is the cause of the other . - WRONG. Not inferable.

(D) The argument draws a general conclusion about  a group  based on data about  an unrepresentative sample of that group . - WRONG. Which group does it refers to? If its computer experts then several may stand for large number also.

(E) The argument infers that a property belonging to large institutions  belongs to all institutions .

Answer B.

rohitrajishu · Answer

D is incorrect as the speaker is hospital executive and it is mentioned in the argument about large inst. like universities and hospitals

Konwhomein · Answer

pl help in understanding why D id wrong

Bunuel · Answer

Several posts in this thread answer your question but if it's still unclear below is a video explanation of this question:

tG8ydQ8lmPY

Hope it helps.

Raman109 · Answer

Understanding the argument - 
Hospital executive: At a recent conference on nonprofit management, several computer experts maintained that the most significant threat faced by large institutions such as universities and hospitals is unauthorized access to confidential data. - Background info. 
In light of this testimony, we should make the protection of our clients’ confidentiality our highest priority. - Conclusion. What about saving people's lives? Should that not be the highest priority for what the hospitals are set for?

The hospital executive’s argument is most vulnerable to which one of the following objections?

(A) The argument confuses the causes of a problem with the appropriate solutions to that problem. - There is no cause mentioned. Out of scope.

(B) The argument relies on the testimony of experts (IT experts) whose expertise is not shown to be sufficiently broad to support their (Hospital Exec) general claim. - ok

(C) The argument assumes that a correlation between two phenomena is evidence that one is the cause of the other. - There are no two phenomena. There is no correlation, and there is no causation.

(D) The argument draws a general conclusion about a group based on data about an unrepresentative sample of that group. - No. "Client confidentiality" is the sample, but there is much more.

(E) The argument infers that a property belonging to large institutions belongs to all institutions. - out of scope.

BinodBhai · Answer

The question can be solved easily via elimination.. other options don't make sense with respect to the argument

B it is

Hospital executive: At a recent conference on nonprofit

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

Hospital executive: At a recent conference on nonprofit

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