Last visit was: 20 Nov 2025, 07:57 It is currently 20 Nov 2025, 07:57
Home
GMAT
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
Rewards
Chat
My Profile
Close
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
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
Back to Forum
Create Topic
   1   2 
655-705 Level|   Strengthen|                                 
User avatar
KarishmaB
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 20 Nov 2025
Posts: 16,267
Own Kudos:
77,005
Given Kudos: 482
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,267
Kudos: 77,005
Often patients with ankle fractures that are stable, and thus do not 09 Sep 2019, 05:09
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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.
Show more

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.
avatar
mk96
avatar
Joined: 14 Mar 2018
Last visit: 18 Sep 2022
Posts: 79
Own Kudos:
22
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: 79
Kudos: 22
Often patients with ankle fractures that are stable, and thus do not 22 Mar 2021, 08:44
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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.

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.

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!
Show more


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.
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 20 Nov 2025
Posts: 7,443
Own Kudos:
69,788
 [1]
Given Kudos: 2,060
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,443
Kudos: 69,788
 [1]
Often patients with ankle fractures that are stable, and thus do not 25 Mar 2021, 22:34
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
mk96
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.
Show more
“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!
avatar
mk96
avatar
Joined: 14 Mar 2018
Last visit: 18 Sep 2022
Posts: 79
Own Kudos:
22
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: 79
Kudos: 22
Often patients with ankle fractures that are stable, and thus do not 26 Mar 2021, 22:21
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
GMATNinja
mk96
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.
“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!
Show more

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?
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 20 Nov 2025
Posts: 7,443
Own Kudos:
69,788
 [2]
Given Kudos: 2,060
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,443
Kudos: 69,788
 [2]
Often patients with ankle fractures that are stable, and thus do not 09 Apr 2021, 07:12
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
mk96
GMATNinja
mk96
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.
“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!

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?
Show more
(B) lays out a clear sequence of events:

    1) An ankle is injured
    2) An initial x-ray is ordered
    3) That x-ray reveals the injury not to involve an ankle fracture.

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!
User avatar
celan
User avatar
Joined: 12 Sep 2017
Last visit: 17 May 2022
Posts: 24
Own Kudos:
11
 [1]
Given Kudos: 16
Location: Korea, Republic of
Schools: Columbia CBS '24
GMAT 1: 720 Q50 V37
GPA: 3.6
Schools: Columbia CBS '24
GMAT 1: 720 Q50 V37
Posts: 24
Kudos: 11
 [1]
Often patients with ankle fractures that are stable, and thus do not 06 May 2021, 08:34
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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.
User avatar
ashutosh_73
User avatar
Joined: 19 Jan 2018
Last visit: 30 Oct 2024
Posts: 234
Own Kudos:
1,642
Given Kudos: 86
Location: India
Posts: 234
Kudos: 1,642
Often patients with ankle fractures that are stable, and thus do not 26 Dec 2023, 23:36
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Quote:
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.
Show more


Hi KarishmaB,
Thanks for all you do :please:
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.
User avatar
KarishmaB
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 20 Nov 2025
Posts: 16,267
Own Kudos:
77,005
 [3]
Given Kudos: 482
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,267
Kudos: 77,005
 [3]
Often patients with ankle fractures that are stable, and thus do not 27 Dec 2023, 23:36
3
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
ashutosh_73
Quote:
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.


Hi KarishmaB,
Thanks for all you do :please:
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.
Show more

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.
User avatar
ashutosh_73
User avatar
Joined: 19 Jan 2018
Last visit: 30 Oct 2024
Posts: 234
Own Kudos:
1,642
Given Kudos: 86
Location: India
Posts: 234
Kudos: 1,642
Often patients with ankle fractures that are stable, and thus do not 30 Dec 2023, 23:46
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
KarishmaB
ashutosh_73
Quote:
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.


Hi KarishmaB,
Thanks for all you do :please:
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.

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.
Show more


Hi KarishmaB,

I appreciate the detailed explanation. I just came across a question that works on similar lines.

https://gmatclub.com/forum/the-magno-bl ... 69975.html

As you suggested: whenever a conclusion is drawn on the basis of a study/experiment, do we actually know whether the study/experiment is TRUE?
No, we do not know that. The author assumes it to to be TRUE. Hence, we can strengthen/weaken the argument by pointing out that study was perfect/flawed.

Thanks :please: The above explanation makes much sense now.
User avatar
anchitahuja
User avatar
Joined: 24 Jan 2018
Last visit: 04 Nov 2025
Posts: 14
Own Kudos:
9
Given Kudos: 83
Posts: 14
Kudos: 9
Often patients with ankle fractures that are stable, and thus do not 11 Jul 2025, 03:08
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Is argument different than hypothesis / conclusion ?

Here , my pre-thinking was something like if follow ups are expensive, it's actually a waste of money so the options must point towards that. However, I see that the correct choice strengthens the evidence, not the conclusion
   1   2 
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7443 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
231 posts
miag
189 posts