Last visit was: 27 Apr 2026, 23:08

It is currently 27 Apr 2026, 23:08

Toolkit

Practice Tests

Critical Reasoning (CR)

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
Your Progress

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

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Go to My Error Log Learn more

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Apr 28
Join - GMAT Day!
08:00 AM PDT
-
11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
Apr 27
Try OnDemand GMAT Masterclass
11:00 AM EDT
-
12:00 PM EDT
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors

Back to Forum

Create Topic

Often patients with ankle fractures that are stable, and thus do not

1 2

KarishmaB

Tutor

Joined: 16 Oct 2010

Last visit: 27 Apr 2026

Posts: 16,447

Own Kudos:

79,433

Given Kudos: 485

Location: Pune, India

Expert

Expert reply

Posts: 16,447

Kudos: 79,433

$Often patients with ankle fractures that are stable, and thus do not$ 09 Sep 2019, 05:09

Kudos

Bookmarks

Albs

venkateshraviraj

cloudz9

Often patients with ankle fractures that are stable, and thus do not require surgery, are given follow-up x-ray because their orthopedists are concerned
about possibly having misjudged the stability of the fracture. When a number of follow-up x-rays were reviewed, however, all the fractures that had initially been judged stable were found to have healed correctly. Therefore, it is a waste of money to order follow-up x-rays of ankle fracture initially judged stable.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?

A) Doctors who are general practitioners rather than orthopedists are less likely than orthopedists to judge the stability of an ankle fracture correctly.

B) Many ankle injuries for which an initial x-ray is ordered are revealed by the
x-ray not to involve any fracture of the ankle.

C) X-rays of patients of many different orthopedists working in several hospitals were reviewed.

D) The healing of ankle fractures that have been surgically repaired is always
checked by means of a follow-up x-ray.

E) Orthopedists routinely order follow-up x-rays for fractures of bone other than ankle bones.

No OA on this one - we will need to come to a consensus

I pick C because when i read the argument, the first thing that i though of was 'was the survey big enough' which fits in with C.

anyway using POE:
A compares GPs and orthos....no relevance
B talks about injuries without fracture...no relevance
C tells you that the study was extensive and done in a variety of environments, thus strengthening the fact that you can make a generalised conclusion like the one above..
D tells you that followups are done...which doesnt strengthen the argument
E says that orthos do follow ups on other injuries too...this weakens the conclusion if anything...because if they do it for other things, why should they stop for ankles.

The only remaining answer is C

well thats my way of thinking in any case
obviously could be completely off

Option C does not specify that ankle injuries are reviewed. It just generalizes that x rays are reviewed. How that could be right answer?
I still dwell with B. Can you please explain, in other words, why B should be eliminated?

VeritasKarishma My thought process is the same as venkateshraviraj . I can do POE to get to C. however under pressure, I would pick a different answer for the simple fact that C does not specify patients with ankle injuries. I would have expected it to say 'X-rays of patients with ankle fractures of many different orthopedists...' because for all I know it could be x-rays of patients with I dunno, a sprained knee.

Can you please clarify as it would be greatly appreciated.

From the argument's context, we know that we are talking about ankle x rays (or at least x rays including ankle x rays)

Argument: When a number of follow-up x-rays were reviewed, however, all the fractures that had initially been judged stable were found to have healed correctly.

Before this, we talk about ankle fractures and the conclusion is based on this.

So when option (C) says "X-rays ... were reviewed", it does imply that we are talking about the x-rays reviewed above which are ankle x-rays.

mk96

Joined: 14 Mar 2018

Last visit: 18 Sep 2022

Posts: 74

Own Kudos:

Given Kudos: 194

Location: India

Concentration: General Management, Finance

Schools: IIMA PGPX'22

GPA: 4

WE:Corporate Finance (Finance: Investment Banking)

Schools: IIMA PGPX'22

Posts: 74

Kudos: 22

$Often patients with ankle fractures that are stable, and thus do not$ 22 Mar 2021, 08:44

Kudos

Bookmarks

GMATNinja

adkikani

Hi GMATNinja generis @GmatininjaTwo

How do we perform PoE for B and C when RESULTS or outcomes are NOT known?

Before we look at POE, let's make sure we understand the argument. The conclusion is that "it is a waste of money to order follow-up x-rays of ankle fractures initially judged stable." How does the author arrive at this conclusion?

"Often patients with ankle fractures that are stable are given follow-up x-ray because their orthopedists are concerned about possibly having misjudged the stability of the fracture." - The orthopedists think that the fractures are stable and don't require surgery. Just in case, some time after making that initial judgment, follow-up x-rays are ordered to check the injury.
A number of follow-up x-rays were reviewed.
In that review, all the fractures that had initially been judged stable were found to have healed correctly.

Quote:

B) Many ankle injuries for which an initial x-ray is ordered are revealed by the x-ray not to involve any fracture of the ankle.

Choice (B) describes the situation in which the initial x-ray reveals that the ankle is not fractured. The argument is not concerned with this situation. The argument deals with follow-up x-rays of stable ankle fractures. Choice (B) is irrelevant and can be eliminated.

Quote:

C) X-rays of patients of many different orthopedists working in several hospitals were reviewed.

Ah ha... choice (C) tells us something about the extent of the review.

Does this prove that the conclusion is valid? Not at all. We still don't know the exact extent of the study. But does (C) strengthen the argument? Absolutely. Without choice (C), it would be entirely possible, for example, that the review included only one orthopedist or only one hospital. With (C), we at least know that the review included many different orthopedists and hospitals.

Choice (C) makes the argument better. Even though it does not prove that the conclusion is true, it certainly strengthens the argument. Thus, (C) is the best answer.

I hope that helps!

Hi GMATNinja

Can you please help me understand what this means "Many ankle injuries for which an initial x-ray is ordered are revealed by the x-ray not to involve any fracture of the ankle"

What do we mean by "not to involve any fracture of the ankle" in the above? I think I am having problem in comprehending this.

GMATNinja

GMAT Club Verbal Expert

Joined: 13 Aug 2009

Last visit: 27 Apr 2026

Posts: 7,391

Own Kudos:

70,821

[1]

Given Kudos: 2,133

Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors

Location: United States (CO)

GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46 Verified score

GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51 Verified score

GRE 1: Q170 V170 Verified score

GRE 2: Q170 V170 Verified score

Products:

Expert

Expert reply

GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51 Verified score

GRE 1: Q170 V170 Verified score

GRE 2: Q170 V170 Verified score

Posts: 7,391

Kudos: 70,821

[1]

$Often patients with ankle fractures that are stable, and thus do not$ 25 Mar 2021, 22:34

Kudos

Bookmarks

mk96

“Not to involve any fracture of the ankle” means that the ankle is not fractured. In other words, (B) describes an x-ray that reveals the ankle is not fractured after all and thus something else must be the source of the injury.

I hope that helps a bit!

mk96

Joined: 14 Mar 2018

Last visit: 18 Sep 2022

Posts: 74

Own Kudos:

Given Kudos: 194

Location: India

Concentration: General Management, Finance

Schools: IIMA PGPX'22

GPA: 4

WE:Corporate Finance (Finance: Investment Banking)

Schools: IIMA PGPX'22

Posts: 74

Kudos: 22

$Often patients with ankle fractures that are stable, and thus do not$ 26 Mar 2021, 22:21

Kudos

Bookmarks

GMATNinja

mk96

Thanks- I get it but isn't this an odd construction (have bolded to display meaning more clearly), i.e. many ankle injuries are revealed by the x-ray not to involve any fracture of the ankle. I think it should have been many ankle injuries revealed by the x-ray do not involve any fracture of the ankle
Many ankle injuries for which an initial x-ray is ordered are revealed by the x-ray not to involve any fracture of the ankle

Share any final thoughts please. Why is this construction so convoluted?

GMATNinja

GMAT Club Verbal Expert

Joined: 13 Aug 2009

Last visit: 27 Apr 2026

Posts: 7,391

Own Kudos:

70,821

[2]

Given Kudos: 2,133

Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors

Location: United States (CO)

GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46 Verified score

GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51 Verified score

GRE 1: Q170 V170 Verified score

GRE 2: Q170 V170 Verified score

Products:

Expert

Expert reply

GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51 Verified score

GRE 1: Q170 V170 Verified score

GRE 2: Q170 V170 Verified score

Posts: 7,391

Kudos: 70,821

[2]

$Often patients with ankle fractures that are stable, and thus do not$ 09 Apr 2021, 07:12

Kudos

Bookmarks

mk96

GMATNinja

mk96

(B) lays out a clear sequence of events:

Is there another way to phrase this sequence of events? Sure -- there are almost unlimited ways to express information in written English.

Luckily, to correctly answer a CR question you don't need to assess whether an answer choice is written in the simplest possible way. Instead, just read the answer choice carefully and see whether it can be eliminated. Perhaps simplicity comes into play on SC, but it's not worth your time to worry about alternate phrasing of CR answer choices.

I hope that helps a bit!

celan

Joined: 12 Sep 2017

Last visit: 17 May 2022

Posts: 19

Own Kudos:

[1]

Given Kudos: 16

Location: Korea, Republic of

Schools: Columbia CBS '24

GMAT 1: 720 Q50 V37 Verified score

GPA: 3.6

Schools: Columbia CBS '24

GMAT 1: 720 Q50 V37 Verified score

Posts: 19

Kudos: 11

[1]

$Often patients with ankle fractures that are stable, and thus do not$ 06 May 2021, 08:34

Kudos

Bookmarks

Often patients with ankle fractures that are stable, and thus do not require surgery, are given follow-up x-rays because their orthopedists are concerned about possibly having misjudged the stability of the fracture. When a number of follow-up x-rays were reviewed, however, all the fractures that had initially been judged stable were found to have healed correctly. Therefore, it is a waste of money to order follow-up x-rays of ankle fractures initially judged stable.

P : stable ankle fractures -> follow-up x-rays
P : All judgemenets were correct
C : follow-up x-rays is waste of money.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?

A. Doctors who are general practitioners rather than orthopedists are less likely than orthopedists to judge the stability of an ankle fracture correctly.
-> The argument is talking about orthopedists, not general practitioners.

B. Many ankle injuries for which an initial x-ray is ordered are revealed by the x-ray not to involve any fracture of the ankle.
-> Ordinarily, most cases in which x-ray are done will not show up any fracture of the ankle. However, this argument is only concentrating in the cases that fracture of the ankle virtually exists.

C. X-rays of patients of many different orthopedists working in several hospitals were reviewed.
-> Correct. While the argument has mentioned a strong term "all", decreasing viability of the conclusion, this information provides that sampling was not small and we can trust the conclusion.

D. The healing of ankle fractures that have been surgically repaired is always checked by means of a follow-up x-ray.
-> Irrelevant. The conclusion is stating that such a follow-up x-ray is not necessary. Moreover, the conclusion is not talking about ankle fractures that need surgical repair.

E. Orthopedists routinely order follow-up x-rays for fractures of bones other than ankle bones.
-> Irrelevant. The argument is only concerned with the fracture of ankle bones not other bones.

ashutosh_73

Joined: 19 Jan 2018

Last visit: 30 Oct 2024

Posts: 222

Own Kudos:

1,954

Given Kudos: 86

Location: India

Posts: 222

Kudos: 1,954

$Often patients with ankle fractures that are stable, and thus do not$ 26 Dec 2023, 23:36

Kudos

Bookmarks

Quote:

Hi KarishmaB,
Thanks for all you do

I am struggling with one thing here: In strengthening questions, we generally strengthen the logical leap from Premise to conclusion, but can we strengthen a premise?

Here, by saying that ''X-rays of patients of many different orthopedists working in several hospitals were reviewed'' are not we boosting the premise? Boosting by saying that, premise is correct?

Premise": all the fractures that had initially been judged stable were found to have healed correctly
Conclusion: it is a waste of money to order follow-up x-rays of ankle fracture initially judged stable.

KarishmaB

Tutor

Joined: 16 Oct 2010

Last visit: 27 Apr 2026

Posts: 16,447

Own Kudos:

79,433

[3]

Given Kudos: 485

Location: Pune, India

Expert

Expert reply

Posts: 16,447

Kudos: 79,433

[3]

$Often patients with ankle fractures that are stable, and thus do not$ 27 Dec 2023, 23:36

Kudos

Bookmarks

ashutosh_73

Quote:

Hi KarishmaB,
Thanks for all you do

Premises are facts. We cannot "strengthen" a premise. It is already established and needs no strengthening.
That said, when we have a study and we conclude something from its result, we do not need to take its result to be true in all cases. We can strengthen or weaken the result of the study.

For example, if we are given as a premise: Pigeons are vengeful.
Then that's it. Saying that a pigeon I tried to shoo away attacked me is not going to strengthen it. We have already established that they are vengeful.

On the other hand, if we are given that a study found that pigeons are vengeful, it doesn't mean that all pigeons are certainly vengeful. We could weaken the result of the study by claiming that the participating pigeons all belonged to an area with low resources or we can strengthen it by saying that the study observed pigeons in many different areas.

Similarly, here we have a study: "When a number of follow-up x-rays were reviewed, however, all the fractures that had initially been judged stable were found to have healed correctly."
Based on this observation, we are concluding something. I can strengthen or weaken the result of this observation.

odionam

Joined: 09 Jan 2026

Last visit: 27 Apr 2026

Posts: 7

Own Kudos:

Given Kudos: 9

Location: India

Concentration: Finance, General Management

GPA: 8.85

WE:Engineering (Government)

Products:

Posts: 7

Kudos: 7

$Often patients with ankle fractures that are stable, and thus do not$ 14 Mar 2026, 22:53

Kudos

Bookmarks

But C seems like weakner I infered from C is review is done by different Othopedists so money is not wasted in followup x-rays and in B initial x-ray doesn't show fracture therefore followup x-ray would be waste of money Kindly help GmatNinja

GMATNinja

"Often patients with ankle fractures that are stable are given follow-up x-ray because their orthopedists are concerned about possibly having misjudged the stability of the fracture." - The orthopedists think that the fractures are stable and don't require surgery. Just in case, some time after making that initial judgment, follow-up x-rays are ordered to check the injury.
A number of follow-up x-rays were reviewed.
In that review, all the fractures that had initially been judged stable were found to have healed correctly.

Based on the review, it seems as though the follow-up x-rays are unnecessary. But how many x-rays were actually reviewed? We only know that "a number" of x-rays were reviewed. What if the review only included a handful of patients with the same highly-talented orthopedist? Without knowing the extent of the review, we cannot safely make a generalization.

We are looking for something that strengthens the argument.

Choice (B) describes the situation in which the initial x-ray reveals that the ankle is not fractured. The argument is not concerned with this situation. The argument deals with follow-up x-rays of stable ankle fractures. Choice (B) is irrelevant and can be eliminated.

Ah ha... choice (C) tells us something about the extent of the review.

Does this prove that the conclusion is valid? Not at all. We still don't know the exact extent of the study. But does (C) strengthen the argument? Absolutely. Without choice (C), it would be entirely possible, for example, that the review included only one orthopedist or only one hospital. With (C), we at least know that the review included many different orthopedists and hospitals.

Choice (C) makes the argument better. Even though it does not prove that the conclusion is true, it certainly strengthens the argument. Thus, (C) is the best answer.

I hope that helps!

guddo

Joined: 25 May 2021

Last visit: 27 Apr 2026

Posts: 1,039

Own Kudos:

11,404

[1]

Given Kudos: 32

Posts: 1,039

Kudos: 11,404

[1]

$Often patients with ankle fractures that are stable, and thus do not$ 15 Mar 2026, 02:45

Kudos

Bookmarks

odionam

(C) isn’t a weakener because it does not say follow ups were useful. It says the review covered many orthopedists and hospitals, so the result “all healed correctly” is more general, making it more likely that follow ups are unnecessary.

(B) doesn’t help because the conclusion is about follow up x rays for fractures judged stable. If the initial x ray shows no fracture, those cases are outside the argument. It doesn’t support the claim that stable fractures don’t need follow ups.

1 2

Moderators:

GMATNinja

GMAT Club Verbal Expert

7391 posts

AbhishekP220108

507 posts

bhanu29

363 posts