Hospital executive: At a recent conference on nonprofit

+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 ---

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

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

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)..

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.

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?

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?

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 !!

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.

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

pl help in understanding why D id wrong

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



Hope it helps.

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.