GMAT Question of the Day: Daily via email | Daily via Instagram New to GMAT Club? Watch this Video

It is currently 28 May 2020, 22:37

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.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

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

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Find Similar Topics 
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
User avatar
V
Status: GMAT and GRE tutors
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 3428
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170

GRE 2: Q170 V170
Re: Often patients with ankle fractures that are stable, and thus do not  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 Dec 2018, 18:32
dave13 wrote:
GMATNinja wrote:
adkikani wrote:
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!


hello GMATNinja

i have one question about C. C claims X-rays of patients of many different orthopedists working in several hospitals were reviewed.

Yes they were reviewed but what was the result of these reviewes ? maybe it was proved that it is better to do folow up x-rays ? how do we assume that it strengths statement if the result of the reviews could be recommendation of follow up x rays ?

thanks and have a nice weekend

dave :)

Hi Dave,

Remember that the passage still states the following:

Quote:
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.

No matter how many reviews took place, the result regarding all the fractures that had initially been judged stable (within this set number of reviews) was that they healed correctly. We know this was the outcome even before we look at choice (C).

But let's be clear about what choice (C) says and what it doesn't say:

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

Without choice (C), we have "a number of reviews." With (C), we have "a number of reviews of patients from many different orthopedists working in several hospitals."

This new information doesn't strengthen the argument by changing the literal outcome of the x-rays or the injuries. (C) strengthens the argument by providing information that gives us more confidence in the initial set of reviews. And it definitely doesn't add information to contradict what we've already read about the outcomes of these reviews.

I hope this helps!
_________________
GMAT/GRE tutors @ www.gmatninja.com (we're hiring!) | GMAT Club Verbal Expert | YouTube | Blog | Bad at PMs

Beginners' guides to GMAT verbal: RC | CR | SC

YouTube LIVE verbal webinars: all videos by topic

SC articles & resources: How to go from great (760) to incredible (780) on GMAT SC | That "-ing" Word Probably Isn't a Verb | That "-ed" Word Might Not Be a Verb, Either | No-BS Guide to GMAT Idioms | "Being" is not the enemy | WTF is "that" doing in my sentence?

RC, CR, and other articles & resources: All GMAT Ninja articles on GMAT Club | Using LSAT for GMAT CR & RC |7 reasons why your actual GMAT scores don't match your practice test scores | How to get 4 additional "fake" GMAT Prep tests for $29.99 | Time management on verbal

SC & CR Questions of the Day (QOTDs), featuring expert explanations: All QOTDs | Subscribe via email | RSS

Need an expert reply? Hit the request verbal experts' reply button; be specific about your question, and tag @GMATNinja. Priority is always given to official GMAT questions.
Manager
Manager
avatar
S
Joined: 15 Jan 2018
Posts: 66
Re: Often patients with ankle fractures that are stable, and thus do not  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 Jun 2019, 18:51
Vithal wrote:
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.


Official Guide for GMAT Verbal Review, 2nd Edition

Practice Question
Question No.: 45
Page: 134


I was able to see the answer coming from a mile away. Hopefully this helps someone answer strengthen/weaken questions in the future.

This stimulus states that when the follow-up x-rays were reviewed, the doctors found that the injuries healed properly. Argument: Therefore, there's absolutely no reason ever to followup with an ankle injury because these follow-up x-rays should speak for all and every x-ray to come.

Do you see where this is going? There are many alternative reasons as to why all the follow-up x-rays came out fine, and we don't have to list them here either. We just have to understand that for this particular strengthen question, we have to legitimize the evidence used to justify the claim (i.e., these follow-up x-rays should speak for most/almost all follow-up x-rays).

C does exactly that. C says that this was not just a circumstance particular to one doctor, one office. It states that the follow-up x-ray findings were widespread.
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 27 Mar 2019
Posts: 17
Re: Often patients with ankle fractures that are stable, and thus do not  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 26 Aug 2019, 19:21
cloudz9 wrote:
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[/quote]

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?
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 16 Nov 2015
Posts: 44
Location: United Kingdom
Concentration: Social Entrepreneurship, Other
GMAT 1: 610 Q39 V35
Re: Often patients with ankle fractures that are stable, and thus do not  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Sep 2019, 15:21
1
venkateshraviraj wrote:
cloudz9 wrote:
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?[/quote]

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.
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
User avatar
V
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 10467
Location: Pune, India
Often patients with ankle fractures that are stable, and thus do not  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Sep 2019, 04:09
Albs wrote:
venkateshraviraj wrote:
cloudz9 wrote:
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.
_________________
Karishma
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor

Learn more about how Veritas Prep can help you achieve a great GMAT score by checking out their GMAT Prep Options >
Manager
Manager
avatar
S
Joined: 23 Sep 2019
Posts: 92
Location: India
GMAT 1: 700 Q50 V35
Premium Member Reviews Badge CAT Tests
Often patients with ankle fractures that are stable, and thus do not  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post Updated on: 29 Feb 2020, 21:27
I got to C by the process of elimination.

It essentially tells us that the research was extensive and can thus be trusted.

B talks about initial X-Rays.

Cheers,

Originally posted by TarPhi on 13 Feb 2020, 06:33.
Last edited by TarPhi on 29 Feb 2020, 21:27, edited 1 time in total.
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 03 Feb 2020
Posts: 13
Re: Often patients with ankle fractures that are stable, and thus do not  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 29 Feb 2020, 21:11
PoE
Super-set/Sub-set logic
Keep the objective in mind. We need to strengthen the argument that follow-up x-rays are not needed.

(A) Doctors who are general practitioners rather than orthopedists are less likely than orthopedists to judge the stability of an ankle fracture correctly.
Out of scope. The passage does not talk about Orthopedists' v/s Doctors' ability to diagnose the problem.

(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.
Tempting- Keep in the first read.
In the second read, you will realize that this one talks about initial x-ray, not the follow-up x-ray.
Eliminate.


(C) X-rays of patients of many different orthopedists working in several hospitals were reviewed.
Tempting- Keep in the first read.
In the second read, select (C) by elimination (B)
Correct


(D) The healing of ankle fractures that have been surgically repaired is always checked by means of a follow-up x-ray.
This one simply enforces the status quo. We need to defy the status quo, not enforce it.

(E) Orthopedists routinely order follow-up x-rays for fractures of bone other than ankle bones.
'fractures of bone' is a super-set.
'ankle fractures' is a sub-set.
We cannot apply super-set logic to the sub-set. Besides, even if were to accept this, this will only enforce the status quo, which we want to nullify.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
P
Joined: 31 Jan 2020
Posts: 289
Re: Often patients with ankle fractures that are stable, and thus do not  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 29 Feb 2020, 21:45
At the core of this question is recognizing that it's is about strengthening the evidence of the claim.

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. AND (C) X-rays of patients of many different orthopedists working in several hospitals were reviewed. are linked quite neatly in that sense.

I know, I know. (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. seems tempting. But, remember, you could just as easily say, looking at the statement, that because SOME ankle injuries are revealed in x-rays to still involve a fracture, we had better be safe and order one for the patient.
_________________
For online tutoring contact: gmatknight@gmail.com - gmatknight.wixsite.com/gmatknight
Manager
Manager
avatar
S
Status: Discipline & Consistency always beat talent
Joined: 15 May 2017
Posts: 187
Location: United States
GPA: 3.59
WE: Sales (Retail)
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Often patients with ankle fractures that are stable, and thus do not  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Apr 2020, 12:14
CAMANISHPARMAR wrote:
Official Answer

Argument Evaluation

Situation Often patients with ankle fractures that their orthopedists have judged not to require surgery are given follow-up x-rays to check whether the fracture healed correctly. An examination of a sample of those x-rays found that the ankle had, in each case, healed properly.

Reasoning The question is which of the options, if true, would most strengthen the argument. The argument is based on data concerning follow-up x-rays, each of which revealed no problem with the orthopedist's initial judgment that the ankle fracture was stable (and would heal without surgery). This invites the question whether the follow-up x-rays are really needed. The argument concludes that they are a waste of money. But was the x-ray data truly representative of orthopedists generally? After all, some orthopedists—perhaps more experienced, better-trained, or employed at a facility with better staff or facilities—may be much better than others at judging ankle fractures. If we add the information that the data for the conclusion comes from many orthopedists working at many different hospitals, we have greater assurance that the x-ray data is representative, and the argument will be made much stronger.

Option C is Correct. This shows that the sample of x-ray data examined was probably sufficiently representative of cases of ankle fracture judged to be stable by orthopedists.

Why are answer options A, B, D & E wrong? :-

A - Neither the study nor the conclusion that is drawn from it concerns general practitioners, so this point is irrelevant.

B - Naturally many ankle injuries do not involve fractures—x-rays may sometimes be used to determine this—but the argument concerns only cases where there have been ankle fractures.

D - The argument does not concern cases of ankle fracture that have been surgically repaired.

E - The argument concerns only x-rays of ankles. From the information given here, we cannot infer that orthopedists are generally wasteful in routinely ordering follow-up x-rays.


Something is not right:

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. Therefore, it is a waste of money to order follow-up x-rays of ankle fracture initially judged stable.

OE: "This invites the question whether the follow-up x-rays are really needed. The argument concludes that they are a waste of money. But was the x-ray data truly representative of orthopedists generally?"

If x-ray data truly representative of orthopedists generally, then the X-ray is needed in order to evaluate the fracture's condition. Without X-ray at first, how could orthopedists judge the ankle fractures? This requires X-ray. So it is not a waste of money to do the follow-ups. This weakens the argument. There is no where in argument stating that the 1st x-ray was conducted after the surgery. Only follow-up x-rays are mentioned.

Can experts please help explaining this? Thanks.
_________________
Consistency and Discipline beat Talent.
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 16 Jan 2020
Posts: 30
Re: Often patients with ankle fractures that are stable, and thus do not  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 May 2020, 13:30
(A) Doctors who are general practitioners rather than orthopedists are less likely than orthopedists to judge the stability of an ankle fracture correctly. - Compares judgment of GPs with orthopedists (Irrelevant).

(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. - Ankle injuries are not ankle fractures so does not strengthen the argument.

(C) X-rays of patients of many different orthopedists working in several hospitals were reviewed. - This increases reliability of the sample size and strengthens the basis on which the argument is made.

(D) The healing of ankle fractures that have been surgically repaired is always checked by means of a follow-up x-ray. - We are not concerned with surgically repaired ankles (Irrelevant).

(E) Orthopedists routinely order follow-up x-rays for fractures of bone other than ankle bones. - We are only concerned with fractures of ankle bones (Irrelevant).
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 22 Jul 2019
Posts: 18
Re: Often patients with ankle fractures that are stable, and thus do not  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 May 2020, 10:08
i got destroyed by the english used in answer 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

Not to involve any fracture of the ankle? The subject is???
GMAT Club Bot
Re: Often patients with ankle fractures that are stable, and thus do not   [#permalink] 23 May 2020, 10:08

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 31 posts ] 

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

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  





Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne