This is a good question
i was torn between D and E but one thing in GMAT is always try to eliminate,read the argument agfain ,in thew argument author clearly says :
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.

Thus it clearly says that docs did tell patients about the attended risks and expenses !!!

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.

The option D just repeats whats there in argument

But look at E : this comments on the intention of the docs and clearly says that they were not aware of the differences between two patients!!

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. [/b]

IMO E
Kindly post the OA!!!

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.

IMO E. Since it is medically indistinguishable to know if the patient will benefit form the operation doctors cannot tell anything before the operation.....

E for me
D doesnt answer this-the doctor knew that a particular 4th patient was medically weak and will not recover even after the bypass surgery, but nevertheless advised him so, by not informing him about his medical weakness,but made sure he listed the medical risks involved.
E says all the patients were equal in terms of their medical profile and there was no way in which the doc could distinguish the weaker patient.

This is a difficult question, but the correct answer choice is clearly E.

Consider the following analogy, perhaps not the best one but I hope it will be good enough to make the point.

A dealer sells second-hand cars. Last year 75% of the cars didn't present any problems after the sale, whereas the other 25% presented several problems a few months after the sale. Clearly in that 25% percent of the cars sold, the dealer was more interested in making profit that in the security of the people who bought the cars.

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

-- the dealer didn't know whether the cars had any problems prior to the sale.
-- the dealer equally informed all the customers about the risks of buying a second-hand car.

In this example, I know is not exactly the same, the correct answer choice is clearly the first one. The dealer here could know that the cars were in bad condition, and still convinced the people to buy the cars.

What makes option D incorrect?

If you read closely the stimulus is says

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.

IMO the stimulus already acknowledges for the information given, so the doctors could haven given the same information but recommended patients undergo to the coronary bypass surgery even if the doctors knew that the patients would not benefit.

Of patients over 65 years old who survived coronary bypass surgery—a procedure widely prescribed for people with heart disease—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.

Find the conclusion:
The doctors who advised them to undergo this surgery were more interested in an opportunity to practice their skills and in their fee than in helping the patient.

Choice E states that the medical patients were MEDICALLY INDISTINGUISHABLE from one another. Since this is the case, then no doctor could have placed a bet on a certain patient in order to enhance his/her surgery skills. E nails the conclusion.

On the other hand, D states that patients who got benefit from the surgery were as equally informed as the patients who didn't get benefit. Okay. Let us agree, but does it destroys the conclusion. No, not at all.

It is a straight E.
Regards,
_________________

while answering this question i was confused b/w D and OA but could not nail the right reasons to rule out D
plz help

D and E are close.....APPLY SO WHAT CHECK.....

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. SO WHAT...INFORMING ALL ABOUT RISK OF SURGERY PROVES NOTHING....EVEN IF THEY DID NOT INFORM, the doctors who advised them to undergo this surgery COULD HAVE BEEN more interested in an opportunity to practice their skills and in their fee than in helping the patient.
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.
SO WHAT... the doctors who advised them to undergo this surgery COULD NOT HAVE KNOWINGLY ACCEPTED ONE BAD CONDITION PATIENT to practice their skills and earn fee. SINCE ALL WERE ALIKE WE CANT SAY ONE WAS CHOSEN TO MAKE MONEY............


KUDOS IF U PLEASE.....

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.

puto,

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.

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.

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.

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?).

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.

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.
_________________

The conclusion: the doctors who recommended the surgery were doing so for selfish reasons (a chance to hone their skills/a chance to make $)
The premise: 25% of the patients undergoing the operation did not benefit.

The argument is asserting that the doctors, in some cases, knew that a patient was a bad candidate for the surgery, but recommended the procedure anyway. (Imagine a doctor evaluating a patient, thinking to herself, "yikes, there's no way this procedure will work," and then doing it anyway for the money.)

If we want to undermine that claim, we want to show that the doctors were not consciously thinking that some of these patients would make poor candidates for the procedure.

D is irrelevant. We're assessing the knowledge/motivation of the doctors, not of the patients.

E: If it were impossible to tell the difference between the patients who would benefit and those who wouldn't, then doctors couldn't possibly have been thinking to themselves that some of the patients were poor candidates for the procedure, as they looked just like the ones that benefited. So the scenario above, where the doctor is thinking to herself "bad candidate, but let's make some money!" is no longer plausible. E is the answer.

Moreover, The conclusion here is the last sentence: the doctors were more interested in practicing their skills and making money than in helping the 1 in 4 patients who did not benefit from the surgery. This assumes without providing justification that there's no other reason that doctors would perform the surgery on people who did not benefit from it. However, E weakens the argument by explaining that there was no way to know who would or wouldn't benefit from the surgery; prior to the surgery, all of the patients seemed the same, so until they actually operated and saw the outcome, the doctors had no idea which patients would see good results and which ones wouldn't. Therefore, they weren't necessarily trying to practice their skills and make money on the 25% that didn't see good results. They might have really been trying to help everyone, and 25% of the time, they just failed for some reason.

Just wanted to note that the question says "undermines."

"undermines" = weakens argument

"underlies" = basis for argument, supports

Good to watch out for those two very close-looking words!

E is the best answer choice here.
_________________

GMATNinja & GMATNinjaTwo, Could you help to explain why (D) is incorrect and (E) is correct? I could not understand the meaning of (medically indistinguishable). Does it mean the patients who did not benefit = the patients who did benefit?
_________________

We are told that 25% of patients do not benefit from the surgery. The author thus concludes that "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." In order to reach such a conclusion, we have to assume that the doctors somehow knew in advance that those patients were less likely to benefit from surgery.


Imagine that the doctors did in fact know in advance that 25% of the patients were unlikely to benefit from the surgery. Even if the doctors fully explained the risks to ALL patients, if the doctors did not inform the 25% that they were less likely to benefit from surgery, then the author's accusation could still be valid.


Yes, "medically indistinguishable" implies that the doctors could not tell the difference between the patients who would benefit and the patients who would not benefit. If that were the case, then the doctors could not be guilty of knowingly performing the surgery on patients who were less likely to benefit from surgery. This undermines the author's argument, so choice (E) is the best answer.
_________________

Conclusion: "A procedure widely prescribed for people with heart diseases, only 75 percent benefited from the surgery"
Premises: "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 premises is meant to distract test-takers.

Because of that, E is the correct answer. The term "were medically indistinguishable" is relevant to the fact "its attendant risks and expense." This answer undermines the argument by showing the percentage of unsuccessful case and the reason behind. 75% of patients are beneficial from surgery, it means that the opposite cases still exist, and the test-takers should point it out to weaken the argument.

Argument - there are 10000 people over 65 years old. Of 10000, say 1000 survived surgery. Of those 1000, only 750 benefited from surgery.
Thus rest 250 were advised to undergo surgery by doctors, for doctors financial gain and practice.

Question - Doctors intention were not to gain financial gain or expertise.

A. Many of the patients who receive coronary bypass surgery are less than 55 years old.
- The argument and the conclusion is constrained to people > 65 years old + those who survived the surgery
- Out of context
-wrong

B. Possible benefits of coronary bypass surgery include both relief from troubling symptoms and prolongation of life.
- Whatever, be the benefits, the argument speaks about the benefit gained from the surgery
- Irrelevant
- Wrong

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.
- we need to gauge whether this surgery was advised to correct people. The advise, whether it be to reduce the future risk or it be to do something fancy in their life is irrelevant
- Wrong

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.
- We need to gauge whether the patients were rightly advised about the "need of surgery". The risks are a different matter.
- Wrong

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.
- Okay, the patients were indistinguishable --> thus the doctors cannot target specific individuals to con. Hence, the intentions of doctors were pure
- Correct