Numerous studies of chemotherapy patients over the last ten

+1 B,

agree with dreambeliever's explanations.

Option C is wrong because it primarily uses the word many in "Many Doctors". many is just a number and proves nothing of a consented opinion. For eg., there are 1 million doctors. Out of those, 1,000 doctors believe in the positive effect of mind on preventing illness, but rest do not. Even 1,000 doctors = "many doctors", but their viewpoint is not representative of the entire community as a whole.

If you search for further reasons to rule out option C, then the option mentions about cause and prevention of illness, whereas the question talks about effect of mind on body's healing capability, which is not mentioned in C.
Though for me the first word "many" was enough to rule out the option as irrelevant.

The survival rates for chemotherapy patients in the study were virtually identical regardless of whether or not they received support.: This is at best out of scope and at worst weakening to the argument. argument talks of speed of healing and side effects, not of the survival chances
The patients who did not attend support groups chose not to do so, even though they were healthy enough to attend.: Argument says those who attended support groups healed faster. And those who didnt attend healed slower- and attributes it to the fact that they didnt attend support group.Any option that eliminates other possible reasons for not attending will support/ strengthen. Here the option says that the patients did not NOT attend because they were too ill. If that was the case, then their slow recovery could be attributed to the extent of their illness and not the support group's influence. by eliminating this possible cause, the option strengthens.
Many medical doctors believe that the mind plays a role in the causation and prevention of illness.: Many doesnt mean most, and any way, this sortof conflicts with argument which says mainstream doctors have been slow to acknowledge. again causation, and prevention is not same as healing.
The majority of chemotherapy patients must undergo more than one round of treatment.: Irrelevant, out of scope
Some hospitals do not conduct support groups on their premises for chemotherapy patients and their families.That cannot help us judge whether the support groups are beneficial or not.

Thanks everyone for explanation. Its clear to me now.

B) The patients who did not attend support groups chose not to do so, even though they were healthy enough to attend. << This talks about the category of people who are opposite to those discussed in given argument. Alternate meaning of this choice is that people who actually attended support groups were more sick and unhealthy.


C) Many medical doctors believe that the mind plays a role in the causation and prevention of illness. << Argument above is talking about fewer side effects and shorter recovery after the chemotherapy. We are not concerned about what casued the illness. So this is wrong.

B, Only this can be arrived at


The conclusion says that
"Clearly, although the mainstream scientific community has been slow to acknowledge it, psychological support has an effect on the body's ability to heal."

What would strengthen the argument ? Well something that provides support that the patients who were part of the support group were actually not in better health than those who were not part of the support group, that the group was not designed so that the results were skewed in favor of the conclusion. Note: Even, similar health level would suffice, but option B goes further than that, It says that people were healthy enough and they chose not to attend and therefore they suffered.

Numerous studies of chemotherapy patients over the last ten years have shown that patients who had regularly attended support groups or received counseling experienced significantly fewer side effects and shorter recovery times from chemotherapy than did patients who had not. Clearly, although the mainstream scientific community has been slow to acknowledge it, psychological support has an effect on the body's ability to heal.

Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen the argument above?

The survival rates for chemotherapy patients in the study were virtually identical regardless of whether or not they received support. This actually weakens the argument.
The patients who did not attend support groups chose not to do so, even though they were healthy enough to attend. Correct as explained above
Many medical doctors believe that the mind plays a role in the causation and prevention of illness. Wow first of this a bit far fetched. Let' say that mind actually does play a role (good or bad we don't know) in causation and prevention of disease. Does it also help in healing ? So we are drawing a lot of assumptions.
The majority of chemotherapy patients must undergo more than one round of treatment. Does not affect the argument
Some hospitals do not conduct support groups on their premises for chemotherapy patients and their families. Does this even affect the argument.

Numerous studies of chemotherapy patients over the last ten years have shown that patients who had regularly attended support groups or received counseling experienced significantly fewer side effects and shorter recovery times from chemotherapy than did patients who had not. Clearly, although the mainstream scientific community has been slow to acknowledge it, psychological support has an effect on the body's ability to heal.

Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen the argument above?


B) The patients who did not attend support groups chose not to do so, even though they were healthy enough to attend....
CONCLUSION- psychological support has an effect on the body's ability to heal.
ASSUMPTION- 1. support groups or receivING counseling PROVIDES psychological support.
2. councelling led to body's ability to heal.
3. no other reason eg those who took councelling were as it is better off than those who did'nt... hence recovered faster..... matches B) HENCE CORRECT
4. it was not a coincidence.


KUDOS IF U PLEASE......

My analysis is below...

Struture
Conc: Psychol support has an effect on the body's ability to heal.
Counter P: Although Scientists has been slow to acknowledge effects of Psychol support,
P1: Studies shows that ChPatiens with SG or Couns, experienced fewer side effects + shorter Recover time than ChP with no SG or Couns.

Pre-thinking
Strengthen question.
1st Find the assumption: The author claims that Psychological support has an effect on the body's ability to heal. This is supported by the evidence that Chemoterapy Patients who attended support or counseling groups had 2 outcomes: fewer side effects & shorter recovery time. So, I think that we can find easily two assumptions:
-In all chemotherapy Patients, the body's ability to heal is related to the body's recovery time and the number of side effects.
-Two groups of Chemotherapy patients were the object of the study. In order for the conclusion to be valid, all the patients in the study should have had the same body ability to recover when the study started. So, it means that some of the patient's bodies should not have been damaged enough to prevent a recovery. This would make the comparison of the two groups fair.
2nd Find piece of evidence that supports assumption: Any piece of evidence that support the assumptions or makes the conclusion more believable

Answer choice Analisis
A) The survival rates for chemotherapy patients in the study were virtually identical regardless of whether or not they received support. OFS.
This could be a tricky choice. The survival rates of both groups are not in discussion. Survival rates are different to the body conditions that each group of Ch patients had when the study started

B) The patients who did not attend support groups chose not to do so, even though they were healthy enough to attend. Correct!
This option is aligned with the second assumption. It means that their body was not deteriorated. They were healthy enough to attend the psychological support groups, but decided not to attend. So both groups had bodies with similar conditions to recovery.

C) Many medical doctors believe that the mind plays a role in the causation and prevention of illness. OFS
Neither Doctor's believe, nor Causation and prevention of illnesses are in discussion. Similar conditions of the bodies to recover of the two groups of the study is the key for this question.

D) The majority of chemotherapy patients must undergo more than one round of treatment. OFS
Number of rounds of chemotherapy treatments are not in discussion. It is a very general statement.

E) Some hospitals do not conduct support groups on their premises for chemotherapy patients and their families. OFS
Whatever hospitals do with the support groups is not in discussion.

Hope the analysis helps!

It's not a bad question: when one reads the argument, one should ask oneself: are there other differences between the two groups of patients that might account for the difference is recovery rates and number of side effects? What if the people who did not attend were too ill to do so? B states that they were not and thus strengthens the argument

super confuse b/w B] and C]

C] is pretty straightforward

but B] is quite complex as strenthener. What framework should I use to understand the right answer. I am finding B] difficult to comprehend.

This is a "correlation —> causation" argument. These arguments, unlike almost everything else in CR, can actually be approached systematically.

This framework is exhaustive:

If a correlation exists between X and Y things, there are exactly three possible reasons for the correlation:
1/ Changes in X cause changes in Y.
2/ Changes in Y cause changes in X.
3/ Some third thing Z causes changes in both X and Y.
(If the correlation is positive, the "changes" here will go in the same direction—i.e., an increase in X will correspond to an increase in Y, and likewise for decreases. If the correlation is negative, the changes will go in opposite directions.)

If you're asked to WEAKEN an argument that concludes one of these three from a correlation, the weakener should be one of the other two.

If you're asked to STRENGTHEN such an argument, the correct answer should RULE OUT one of the other two (not both; GMAC answer choices will not have more than one functional effect).


In this problem,
X = attendance at support groups and/or counseling
Y = chemo side effects & recovery time
(These are NEGATIVELY correlated. As one goes up, the other goes down.)

This argument's conclusion is saying #1 (changes in X drive changes in Y). So... all we need to do is find a choice that represents #2 or #3.

Choice B says that worsening health does NOT cause patients to attend psychological support resources less often.
In other words, choice B says that #2 is false. That's the answer we want.

This feels like a tricky one according to me. Most of the test takers would go with Option C on their first go. However I am having trouble in finding Option B as the correct answer. Option C is clearly attacking the conclusion and that is what we are supposed to do to strengthen an argument. Option B has got me thinking. Any help would be appreciated. Option B says that people who did not attend any support groups, chose not to do so even though they were healthy enough to attend. But we do not have any clear information on people attending/not attending support groups. Would someone help me in clearing my doubt... THANK YOU