Medical Investigator: "Podiatrists initially assumed that Meyer's Rash

it supports the argument. so answer is D

Hello arjunmenonv

Actually, according to argument, we still do not have assurance that this is virus:
"Now, recent antibody studies seem to suggest, quite surprisingly, that Meyer's Rash is caused by a virus."

And Dr. Pannikar also does not give any evidences because he just argue that this is viral in nature and arguing is not an evidence in case of decease.
"Dr. Pannikar argued that Meyer's Rash was viral in nature"

Its C - which is a finding.
because A cant be as it is not an explanation.

A says that it is an explanation, while in actual argument the boldface looks like just a casual statement which author wanted to emphasize in order to defend Dr. Pannikar's claim. I really did not get the answer. Apart from A i would say E looks the best option.
This is really confusing

Hello dav90

I read oxford vocabulary and think that this claim is 'explanation':

Oxford vocabulary determination of explanation:
ex·plan·ation noun 1. countable, uncountable a statement, fact, or situation that tells you why sth happened; a reason given for sth

So in our case we can apply to this phrase of Doctor: statement that tells you why sth happened.
"Dr. Pannikar argued that Meyer's Rash was viral in nature."
So this statement says that Meyer's Rash happened because of virus nature.

Why do you think that this claim is not explanation?

Seriously a tricky one. Since explanation lies in these lines:"All anti-fungal medications proved utterly ineffective in addressing Meyer's Rash".

Regards,
Dom.

Hello dominicraj
I think this is fact and evidence but not explanation.

Hi Harley,

IMO, the argument concludes that the Rash is viral. Now what is the suggested reason(explanation) for that?

The fact that all anti-fungal medicines were ineffective.

What is highlighted is "the first instance" a finding... that the argument then proves is right..

Can you please share your line of reasoning so that we can understand that perhaps.

Regards,
Dom.

I think that explanation should looks like:
"The Rash is viral because all anti-fungal medications are ineffective for Rash"

But then we met
"All anti-fungal medications proved utterly ineffective in addressing Meyer's Rash" this is just observation, fact or evidence that can be used for make some explanation. But alone this phrase explain nothing. It is we who make some conclusions from this phrase, not the phrase itself.

Thanks for a detailed reply.

I cannot deny the possibility of there being a subtle connotation of word Explanation.
But in general if i have to say what do i mean by explanation i would like to give one example.

lets consider 2 statements below
1) [Choice A is the correct answer]
2) [I read oxford vocabulary and think that this claim is 'explanation':

Oxford vocabulary determination of explanation:
ex·plan·ation noun 1. countable, uncountable a statement, fact, or situation that tells you why sth happened; a reason given for sth

So in our case we can apply to this phrase of Doctor: statement that tells you why sth happened.
"Dr. Pannikar argued that Meyer's Rash was viral in nature."
So this statement says that Meyer's Rash happened because of virus nature.]

if asked, I would say second sentence is explanation while first one is either a claim or a conclusion

Please correct me if i m deviating too much from the intended discussion.

Hello dav90

I will be honest I have a little revision of my opinion about this question and now I hesitate about why this is explanation and not conclusion
Now I think that the main wrinkle of this task that we doesn't have premises that support claim of doctor.

According to EGmat we can test conclusion by applying word 'because'
The Dow is a cow [conclusion] because she gives a milk and all cows give a milk [premise].

But if we try to apply this test to current question then we received:

At first, only Dr. Pannikar argued that Meyer's Rash was viral in nature. [possible conclusion] because
1) All anti-fungal medications proved utterly ineffective in addressing Meyer's Rash
we can not say that this is needed premise because we don't know timeline of this fact and this fact is not enough fr such conclusion.

2) Now, recent antibody studies seem to suggest, quite surprisingly, that Meyer's Rash is caused by a virus.
We can not use this because it happens after claim of doctor.

But as I mentioned early I am not completely sure in this explanation so I will be glad if somebody gives another opinion about this question.

OE from Magoosh:

The bold sentence talks about Dr. Pannikar's argument, that Meyer's Rash was viral. At the time, he was the only one saying that, but as the medical investigator explains, his view is now the generally accepted conclusion.

(A) is the credited answer. At the time, Pannikar was alone in giving this explanation, but the main conclusion is that, now, this explanation has been vindicated by science.

(E) is close, but not correct. Technically, the bold statement itself is not the conclusion. The conclusion is that what Dr. Pannikar said in the bold statement really turns out to be true.

(B) is wrong. The bold statement presents, according to the medical investigator, what now is accepted as the truth. Therefore, the medical investigator does not oppose it.

(C) is wrong: the bold statement is an explanation, not a finding that needs to be explained.

(D) is wrong: the bold statement does not provide evidence. One person saying something is right does not constitute proof in science. The bold statement is an explanation, not evidence for anything.

The problem with A, in my opinion, is that Dr. Pannikar is not offering any explanation.

It seems that is just providing an alternative cause to Meyer's Rash, that studies made later proved to be right.

I may be being a little picky, but offering an explanation or an alternative cause is not the same.

I believe the correct option should say: "It presents an alternative that the argument concludes is correct."

"Dr. Pannikar argued that Meyer's Rash was viral in nature". Arguing is not the same as presenting an explanation.

"All anti-fungal medications proved utterly ineffective in addressing Meyer's Rash" is a fact that would explain Dr. Pannikar position.

The correct choice should be something like this: It presents a position that the argument concludes is correct.

Hi experts,

would you please explain further on C.

Only Dr. P argued that Meyer's Rash was viral in nature.
obviously , it is Dr.P's opinion, and latter, there are studies prove the opinion.
I don't think bold words is explanation because it is opinion and proved by the latter studies.
if explanation, it will further info to illustrate the conclusion that Meyer's Rash is caused by virus

compared "explanation" with "finding",
I picked up "finding".

genuinely want your help

thanks in advance

have a nice day
>_~

Hi experts,
I am afraid my thread was sunk ,

call for help ....

thanks a lot
have a nice day
>_~

Yes, I agree with you. The bold faced sentence is not a "finding". However it is not an "explanation" either. The question would have been better if the word used were "opinion" or something similar.

Moreover only "Meyer's Rash was viral in nature" needs to be bold faced.That Panicker argued something is not the point of the argument - there is no contention that Panicker did not argue.