GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 24 Sep 2018, 00:43

### GMAT Club Daily Prep

#### Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# Of patients over 65 years old who survived coronary bypass

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Director
Joined: 29 Jul 2006
Posts: 807
Of patients over 65 years old who survived coronary bypass  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

Updated on: 13 Aug 2017, 06:39
15
00:00

Difficulty:

45% (medium)

Question Stats:

66% (01:23) correct 34% (01:33) wrong based on 798 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Of patients over 65 years old who survived coronary bypass surgery, a procedure widely prescribed for people with heart diseases, only 75 percent benefited from the surgery. Thus it appears that for one in four such patients, the doctors who advised them to undergo this surgery, with its attendant risks and expense, were more interested in an opportunity to practice their skills and in their fee than in helping the patient.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument?

A. Many of the patients who receive coronary bypass surgery are less than 55 years old.

B. Possible benefits of coronary bypass surgery include both relief from troubling symptoms and prolongation of life.

C. Most of the patients in the survey decided to undergo coronary bypass surgery because they were advised that the surgery would reduce their risk of future heart attacks.

D. The patients over 65 years old who did not benefit from the coronary bypass surgery were as fully informed as those who did benefit from the surgery as to the risks of the surgery prior to undergoing it.

E. The patients who underwent coronary bypass surgery but who did not benefit from it were medically indistinguishable, prior to their surgery, from the patients who did benefit.

Originally posted by vineetgupta on 30 Jun 2007, 10:19.
Last edited by Vyshak on 13 Aug 2017, 06:39, edited 2 times in total.
Formatting
Manager
Joined: 17 May 2007
Posts: 160
Re: Of patients over 65 years old who survived coronary bypass  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 Jun 2007, 10:27
I would go with answer E here because in E it was clearly mentioned that doctors couldn't medically indistinguish between the patients who benifitted and patient who didn't benifit.

So doctors didn't recommend the patients to go for surgery for the sake of money.

What is OA?
Director
Joined: 09 Aug 2006
Posts: 513
Re: Of patients over 65 years old who survived coronary bypass  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 Jun 2007, 13:36
vineetgupta wrote:
Of patients over 65 years old who survived coronary bypass surgeryâ€”a procedure widely prescribed for people with heart diseaseâ€”only 75 percent benefited from the surgery. Thus it appears that for one in four such patients, the doctors who advised them to undergo this surgery, with its attendant risks and expense, were more interested in an opportunity to practice their skills and in their fee than in helping the patient.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument?

A. Many of the patients who receive coronary bypass surgery are less than 55 years old.

B. Possible benefits of coronary bypass surgery include both relief from troubling symptoms and prolongation of life.

C. Most of the patients in the survey decided to undergo coronary bypass surgery because they were advised that the surgery would reduce their risk of future heart attacks.

D. The patients over 65 years old who did not benefit from the coronary bypass surgery were as fully informed as those who did benefit from the surgery as to the risks of the surgery prior to undergoing it.

E. The patients who underwent coronary bypass surgery but who did not benefit from it were medically indistinguishable, prior to their surgery, from the patients who did benefit.

I would also go for E.

The argument says that : For the patients of 65+ old, only 75% benefited. Hence for 25% times, doctor did not gave them proper advice that surgery might not be beneficial to them.

E says that before surgery, the patients were in same medical condition. Hence if the surgery worked for 75% people, it should have worked for 25% also. This sentence properly undermines the argument that doctors gave wrong advice.
VP
Joined: 03 Apr 2007
Posts: 1219
Re: Of patients over 65 years old who survived coronary bypass  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 Jun 2007, 14:00
1
vineetgupta wrote:
Of patients over 65 years old who survived coronary bypass surgeryâ€”a procedure widely prescribed for people with heart diseaseâ€”only 75 percent benefited from the surgery. Thus it appears that for one in four such patients, the doctors who advised them to undergo this surgery, with its attendant risks and expense, were more interested in an opportunity to practice their skills and in their fee than in helping the patient.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument?

A. Many of the patients who receive coronary bypass surgery are less than 55 years old.

B. Possible benefits of coronary bypass surgery include both relief from troubling symptoms and prolongation of life.

C. Most of the patients in the survey decided to undergo coronary bypass surgery because they were advised that the surgery would reduce their risk of future heart attacks.

D. The patients over 65 years old who did not benefit from the coronary bypass surgery were as fully informed as those who did benefit from the surgery as to the risks of the surgery prior to undergoing it.

E. The patients who underwent coronary bypass surgery but who did not benefit from it were medically indistinguishable, prior to their surgery, from the patients who did benefit.

Both D and E undermine the argument. But IMHO E states a stronger reason.
In D, doctors did their job of informing the patients.
IN E, doctors did not or could not have a self motive because the patients who could benefit and who could not benefit were medically indistinguishable
Director
Joined: 09 Aug 2006
Posts: 513
Re: Of patients over 65 years old who survived coronary bypass  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 Jun 2007, 22:35
1
goalsnr wrote:
vineetgupta wrote:
Of patients over 65 years old who survived coronary bypass surgeryâ€”a procedure widely prescribed for people with heart diseaseâ€”only 75 percent benefited from the surgery. Thus it appears that for one in four such patients, the doctors who advised them to undergo this surgery, with its attendant risks and expense, were more interested in an opportunity to practice their skills and in their fee than in helping the patient.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument?

A. Many of the patients who receive coronary bypass surgery are less than 55 years old.

B. Possible benefits of coronary bypass surgery include both relief from troubling symptoms and prolongation of life.

C. Most of the patients in the survey decided to undergo coronary bypass surgery because they were advised that the surgery would reduce their risk of future heart attacks.

D. The patients over 65 years old who did not benefit from the coronary bypass surgery were as fully informed as those who did benefit from the surgery as to the risks of the surgery prior to undergoing it.

E. The patients who underwent coronary bypass surgery but who did not benefit from it were medically indistinguishable, prior to their surgery, from the patients who did benefit.

Both D and E undermine the argument. But IMHO E states a stronger reason.
In D, doctors did their job of informing the patients.
IN E, doctors did not or could not have a self motive because the patients who could benefit and who could not benefit were medically indistinguishable

The flaw with D here is that the patients were fully informed but of what ..?? were they informed that surgery would beneficial to them ? But was the surgery needed for them ? Hence D does not do job properly or as better as E.
VP
Status: There is always something new !!
Affiliations: PMI,QAI Global,eXampleCG
Joined: 08 May 2009
Posts: 1096
Re: Of patients over 65 years old who survived coronary bypass  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

29 May 2011, 22:53
Its a clean E here.Negating E clearly supports the statement.
_________________

Visit -- http://www.sustainable-sphere.com/
Promote Green Business,Sustainable Living and Green Earth !!

Manager
Status: Time to apply!
Joined: 24 Aug 2011
Posts: 149
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 600 Q48 V25
GMAT 2: 660 Q50 V29
GMAT 3: 690 Q49 V34
GPA: 3.2
WE: Engineering (Computer Software)
Re: Of patients over 65 years old who survived coronary bypass  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Nov 2011, 06:55
Amit05 wrote:
goalsnr wrote:
vineetgupta wrote:
Of patients over 65 years old who survived coronary bypass surgeryâ€”a procedure widely prescribed for people with heart diseaseâ€”only 75 percent benefited from the surgery. Thus it appears that for one in four such patients, the doctors who advised them to undergo this surgery, with its attendant risks and expense, were more interested in an opportunity to practice their skills and in their fee than in helping the patient.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument?

A. Many of the patients who receive coronary bypass surgery are less than 55 years old.

B. Possible benefits of coronary bypass surgery include both relief from troubling symptoms and prolongation of life.

C. Most of the patients in the survey decided to undergo coronary bypass surgery because they were advised that the surgery would reduce their risk of future heart attacks.

D. The patients over 65 years old who did not benefit from the coronary bypass surgery were as fully informed as those who did benefit from the surgery as to the risks of the surgery prior to undergoing it.

E. The patients who underwent coronary bypass surgery but who did not benefit from it were medically indistinguishable, prior to their surgery, from the patients who did benefit.

Both D and E undermine the argument. But IMHO E states a stronger reason.
In D, doctors did their job of informing the patients.
IN E, doctors did not or could not have a self motive because the patients who could benefit and who could not benefit were medically indistinguishable

The flaw with D here is that the patients were fully informed but of what ..?? were they informed that surgery would beneficial to them ? But was the surgery needed for them ? Hence D does not do job properly or as better as E.

Marked D ...
But your explanation helped ... now I know why it is E ! thanks
_________________

Didn't give up !!! Still Trying!!

Manager
Joined: 29 Jan 2015
Posts: 87
Location: India
Concentration: Marketing, Entrepreneurship
GPA: 3.7
WE: Information Technology (Internet and New Media)
Re: Of patients over 65 years old who survived coronary bypass  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Jan 2017, 20:59
I have been stuck upon between 2 options D & E.
But eventually I 've selected D.
My reasoning is:
In the text,the doctors are considered blameworthy since they are supposed to advice the particular mode of surgery for professional gain.Only the option D weakens the above supposition,roundly and squarely.Option D points a doubt that risk involved in this mode of surgery were fully explained to all the patients by the doctors.So, D is more appropriate ans than E.
The idea behind the term, 'medically indistinguishable' is a vague one.It covers a no of issues.Moreover, the option E fails to establish that the doctors concerned were not worthy of blame.So, this particular option simply does not fill the bill.
Why official ans is E.
Senior CR Moderator
Status: Long way to go!
Joined: 10 Oct 2016
Posts: 1385
Location: Viet Nam
Re: Of patients over 65 years old who survived coronary bypass  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Jan 2017, 22:40
1
soumya170293 wrote:
I have been stuck upon between 2 options D & E.
But eventually I 've selected D.
My reasoning is:
In the text,the doctors are considered blameworthy since they are supposed to advice the particular mode of surgery for professional gain.Only the option D weakens the above supposition,roundly and squarely.Option D points a doubt that risk involved in this mode of surgery were fully explained to all the patients by the doctors.So, D is more appropriate ans than E.
The idea behind the term, 'medically indistinguishable' is a vague one.It covers a no of issues.Moreover, the option E fails to establish that the doctors concerned were not worthy of blame.So, this particular option simply does not fill the bill.
Why official ans is E.

Choice D means that the patients were fully informed, but this information is irrelevant to the argument. This choice doesn't affect the argument that the doctors were more interested in an opportunity to practice their skills and in their fee than in helping the patient.

In choice E, since we cant distinguish between patients who did benefit and patients who didn't, there is no reason to blame doctors.
_________________
Manager
Joined: 01 Jun 2015
Posts: 227
Location: India
GMAT 1: 620 Q48 V26
Re: Of patients over 65 years old who survived coronary bypass  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 Mar 2017, 21:33
+1 E.

The author voice his/her concern from the Doctor's perspective over the failure rate.Choice E exactly undermines that by saing Doctors can not dishtinguish between the petients.

Choice D,on the other hand,adresses the petient's point of view,which is irrevalent.
Intern
Joined: 25 Sep 2016
Posts: 22
Re: Of patients over 65 years old who survived coronary bypass  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Apr 2017, 11:21
Choice D - Patients were aware of the consequences of the surgery before hand and still opted to undergo the operation -> Doctors less culpable.
Doctors' motive might have been practice/fee but ultimate decision making power was with the patients.

Choice E - Before surgery patients were medically indistinguishable but we do not know if doctors were forthright in conveying surgery associated risks to them -> Doctors may or may not be culpable.

Experts help plz.
Manager
Joined: 20 Aug 2016
Posts: 56
GMAT 1: 650 Q48 V31
GMAT 2: 670 Q45 V36
GMAT 3: 680 Q47 V35
GMAT 4: 720 Q49 V40
Re: Of patients over 65 years old who survived coronary bypass  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Apr 2017, 13:40
Consider D. Assume that the patients were told about the risks but if the doctors could identify the ones who would not survive then the doctors would practice on these patients and still get a good success rate by operating on the ones they are sure to survive. This cannot weaken the argument. This thought leads us toward E.

Sent from my XT1562 using GMAT Club Forum mobile app
Senior Manager
Joined: 26 Dec 2015
Posts: 268
Location: United States (CA)
Concentration: Finance, Strategy
WE: Investment Banking (Venture Capital)
Re: Of patients over 65 years old who survived coronary bypass  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Apr 2017, 18:19
For me, this just came down to "D" and "E". The other A/Cs I thought were clearly insuff.

Between "D" and "E", for me, it was the case of "which is the crappier answer"? This is where "D" won.

D. The patients over 65 years old who did not benefit from the coronary bypass surgery were as fully informed as those who did benefit from the surgery as to the risks of the surgery prior to undergoing it.
--> if all patients undergoing the surgery well fully informed of the risks, how does this impact bias? if any case, this is an OPPOSITE/STRENGTHENER. hear me out: if the doctors are telling each patient that there are risks, then how could there be bias? this leads me to believe there was no bias, everyone was treated the same.

E. The patients who underwent coronary bypass surgery but who did not benefit from it were medically indistinguishable, prior to their surgery, from the patients who did benefit.
--> on the other hand, if the patients could not be distinguished, how would the bias work? which groups of people would the doctors discriminate/hold bias against? this WEAKENS.

kudos if this helps
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 20 Nov 2016
Posts: 278
Re: Of patients over 65 years old who survived coronary bypass  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Apr 2017, 20:11
1
puto,
Quote:
Choice D - Patients were aware of the consequences of the surgery before hand and still opted to undergo the operation -> Doctors less culpable.
Doctors' motive might have been practice/fee but ultimate decision making power was with the patients.

Choice E - Before surgery patients were medically indistinguishable but we do not know if doctors were forthright in conveying surgery associated risks to them -> Doctors may or may not be culpable.

Let's start with the conclusion: "it appears that for one in four such patients, the doctors who advised them to undergo this surgery, with its attendant risks and expense, were more interested in an opportunity to practice their skills and in their fee than in helping the patient." This implies that the doctors knew that the surgery would probably not help those patients but advised them to undergo the surgery regardless (in order to practice their skills and collect the fee). Thus, the argument would be undermined by any evidence that the doctors thought that those patients were no less likely to benefit from surgery than the other 75% of patients.
Quote:
D. The patients over 65 years old who did not benefit from the coronary bypass surgery were as fully informed as those who did benefit from the surgery as to the risks of the surgery prior to undergoing it.

Does D undermine the argument? Not necessarily... this does not tell us whether the doctors knew in advance that the group of 25% would probably not benefit from surgery. In fact, if the doctors informed those patients of the risks but failed to tell those patients that they would probably not be helped by the surgery, then this would in fact strengthen the argument.
Quote:
E. The patients who underwent coronary bypass surgery but who did not benefit from it were medically indistinguishable, prior to their surgery, from the patients who did benefit.

If there is no way for the doctors to distinguish between the two groups, then they have no idea whether one group is more or less likely to benefit from the surgery. Since the argument rests on the assumption that the doctors knew that the surgery would probably not help those patients (the one in four who did not benefit), choice E undermines the argument.
_________________
Intern
Joined: 25 Sep 2016
Posts: 22
Re: Of patients over 65 years old who survived coronary bypass  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Apr 2017, 23:03
GMATNinjaTwo wrote:
puto,
Quote:
Choice D - Patients were aware of the consequences of the surgery before hand and still opted to undergo the operation -> Doctors less culpable.
Doctors' motive might have been practice/fee but ultimate decision making power was with the patients.

Choice E - Before surgery patients were medically indistinguishable but we do not know if doctors were forthright in conveying surgery associated risks to them -> Doctors may or may not be culpable.

Let's start with the conclusion: "it appears that for one in four such patients, the doctors who advised them to undergo this surgery, with its attendant risks and expense, were more interested in an opportunity to practice their skills and in their fee than in helping the patient." This implies that the doctors knew that the surgery would probably not help those patients but advised them to undergo the surgery regardless (in order to practice their skills and collect the fee). Thus, the argument would be undermined by any evidence that the doctors thought that those patients were no less likely to benefit from surgery than the other 75% of patients.
Quote:
D. The patients over 65 years old who did not benefit from the coronary bypass surgery were as fully informed as those who did benefit from the surgery as to the risks of the surgery prior to undergoing it.

Does D undermine the argument? Not necessarily... this does not tell us whether the doctors knew in advance that the group of 25% would probably not benefit from surgery. In fact, if the doctors informed those patients of the risks but failed to tell those patients that they would probably not be helped by the surgery, then this would in fact strengthen the argument.
Quote:
E. The patients who underwent coronary bypass surgery but who did not benefit from it were medically indistinguishable, prior to their surgery, from the patients who did benefit.

If there is no way for the doctors to distinguish between the two groups, then they have no idea whether one group is more or less likely to benefit from the surgery. Since the argument rests on the assumption that the doctors knew that the surgery would probably not help those patients (the one in four who did not benefit), choice E undermines the argument.

D - > Specifically addresses the focus group [patients over 65 years] whereas E does not.

Also, argument says: "The doctors who advised them to undergo this surgery, with its attendant risks and expense"->
Does this statement not imply that risk of 'not helping the patient' was informed to the patient !?

Option E -> Again this option talks about patients in general not about the group in contention.

Since there is no way for Doctors to medically distinguish they have more incentive to recommend surgery to patients as any complication arising later could be attributed to lack of sufficient information.
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 20 Nov 2016
Posts: 278
Re: Of patients over 65 years old who survived coronary bypass  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

29 Apr 2017, 14:11
Quote:
D - > Specifically addresses the focus group [patients over 65 years] whereas E does not.

Also, argument says: "The doctors who advised them to undergo this surgery, with its attendant risks and expense"->
Does this statement not imply that risk of 'not helping the patient' was informed to the patient !?

Option E -> Again this option talks about patients in general not about the group in contention.

Since there is no way for Doctors to medically distinguish they have more incentive to recommend surgery to patients as any complication arising later could be attributed to lack of sufficient information.

The possibility that the surgery does not help the patient is not a risk. A risk is something that exposes the patient to danger or harm. Not being helped by the surgery isn't a positive outcome, but by itself this doesn't imply any danger to the patient. For example, imagine a new back surgery that is only 25% effective (ie only helps 25% of patients) but has absolutely no risks (no possible dangers); surely, most people with back pain would be willing to try it, even though the odds of success are low (there are no risks, so why not?).
Quote:
D. The patients over 65 years old who did not benefit from the coronary bypass surgery were as fully informed as those who did benefit from the surgery as to the risks of the surgery prior to undergoing it.

Choice D states that the patients in the focus group were AS FULLY INFORMED as the others. That means both groups understood the risks. But this does not rule out the possibility that the doctors KNEW that some of those patients were less likely to have successful outcomes and withheld that information from those patients.
Quote:
E. The patients who underwent coronary bypass surgery but who did not benefit from it were medically indistinguishable, prior to their surgery, from the patients who did benefit.

The argument accuses the doctors of recommending the surgery to those in the focus group despite knowing that the surgery was unlikely to help those patients. If the patients in the focus group were medically indistinguishable, there would be no way for the doctors to make that distinction (ie as far as the doctors knew, ALL patients recommended for surgery were equally likely to have successful results). Lets say that out of 100 patients, 75 had successful surgeries. If the doctors knew in advance that the other 25 were unlikely to have successful surgeries but still recommended the surgery, this would support the argument. But if all 100 were medically indistinguishable, the doctors cannot be guilty of the alleged behavior; perhaps the surgery simply has a 75% success rate and there is no way to know in advance who is more or less likely to have a successful outcome.
_________________
Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 2962
Re: Of patients over 65 years old who survived coronary bypass  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Sep 2018, 23:04
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.
_________________
Re: Of patients over 65 years old who survived coronary bypass &nbs [#permalink] 09 Sep 2018, 23:04
Display posts from previous: Sort by

# Of patients over 65 years old who survived coronary bypass

## Events & Promotions

 Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.