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

 It is currently 19 Oct 2019, 12:49

### 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

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

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Director
Joined: 01 Feb 2003
Posts: 670
Often patients with ankle fractures that are stable, and thus do not  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

Updated on: 22 Nov 2018, 07:10
18
119
00:00

Difficulty:

65% (hard)

Question Stats:

61% (01:57) correct 39% (02:16) wrong based on 3987 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

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

Originally posted by Vithal on 05 Jun 2005, 09:20.
Last edited by Bunuel on 22 Nov 2018, 07:10, edited 5 times in total.
Edited the question.
Manager
Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 223
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Re: Often patients with ankle fractures that are stable, and thus do not  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Jun 2005, 13:35
18
1
10
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[/quote]

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
##### General Discussion
Intern
Joined: 25 Jul 2007
Posts: 2
Re: Often patients with ankle fractures that are stable, and thus do not  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Aug 2007, 22:26
3
2
Why is it B? The conclusion states that, "it is a waste of money to order follow-up x-rays of ankle fracture initially judged stable." The conclusion states that the ankle is already fractured, which means that answer B is out of scope as its subject is about "many ankle injuries" in a broad sense (and not just to those pertaining to ankle fractures).

I think the answer is C because the conclusion is based upon a review of "a number of follow-up x-rays." I think the question pertains to the issue of sample size and accuracy. If (as it is with answer choice C), the sample was drawn from several sources, then the findings from the sample size become less biased and more robust which would then strengthen the conclusion.
Manager
Joined: 01 Oct 2007
Posts: 106
Often patients with ankle fractures that are stable, and thus do not  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Oct 2007, 20:19
C says -
C. X-rays of patients of many different orthopedists working in several hospitals were reviewed.

Does it means that X rays from orthopedists suspected whether its true or false and hence gone for review????
Manager
Joined: 02 Oct 2007
Posts: 92
Often patients with ankle fractures that are stable, and thus do not  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Oct 2007, 22:08
11
yash500 wrote:
C says -
C. X-rays of patients of many different orthopedists working in several hospitals were reviewed.

Does it means that X rays from orthopedists suspected whether its true or false and hence gone for review????

No this is not what it is saying.

The author is taking data and drawing a specific conclusion from it. Whenever you see a survey, sample, poll, etc. You should always be suspect of whether the data is representative of the whole.

For instance, if you read about polls for presidentail elections back in the 1920's the polls would indicate that a certain president would win by an overwhelming majority. However, the polls were conducted via telephone and only wealthy citizens had a telephone and the conclusion reached by the poll was not representative of the total population. Hence the prediction was wrong.

In the case of this argument, the author points to a sample of Xrays that were done a second time and the injury was always healed. What if this sample is only from the Worlds Greatest Orthopedist? Would the data gathered from this Orthopedist be representative of all Orthopedists? No. This would make it impossible for anyone to make a conclusion that 2nd xrays should never be done.

So by saying that the data is gathered from "many different orthopedists working in several hospitals", you are confirming that the data is representative and therefore strengthening the argument by eliminating the possibilty that the data is representative of only the Worlds Greatest Orthopedist.
Senior Manager
Joined: 11 Jun 2007
Posts: 474
Re: Often patients with ankle fractures that are stable, and thus do not  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Nov 2007, 07:26
1
I will go with
E. Orthopedists routinely order follow-up x-rays for fractures of bone other than ankle bones.

If orthopedists routinely DO NOT order follow up x-rays for fractures of ankle bones, then they may presume that fractures of ankle bones need not be x-rayed. Although it might have been better to qualify the choice with 'stable' ankle fractures rather than just 'fractures', it is the best of the lot, I guess.

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

I would have chosen (C) if it were more specific. X-rays of patients of many different orthopedists....patients need not have ankle injuries but some other bone related injuries.

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.

I would have chose (B) if it said many ankle 'fractures' and not 'injuries'.
Intern
Joined: 04 Nov 2007
Posts: 40
Re: Often patients with ankle fractures that are stable, and thus do not  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Nov 2007, 21:21
2
1
vscid wrote:
Try this one chums:

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 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.

Like most GMAT verbal questions, the difficulty is not in the passage but in the answer choices. GMAT verbal does intentionally make the answer choices unncessarily verbose and confusing. GMAT should test the logical reasoning of test takers, not the ability to clear confusion in a bad written English sentence. Unfortunately, this is the way GMAT operates and it is unfair to non-native English speakers.

In CR, it's very important that you can distinguish between the premises and the conclusion. Then it's much simpler to answer the question.

I actually picked B before looking at all the responses and answers. The conclusion of the passage is: "It's a waste of money to order follow-up x-ray of ankle fractures intially judged stable." The premise that strengthens the conclusion above would provide fact/information that further prove that taking x-ray is unecessary and wasteful. Of all answer choices, B shows that many x-rays ordered for ankle injuries do not show fracture of the ankle. Thus, it makes follow-up x-rays unnecessary & wasteful.

Wonder if that makes sense?
Manager
Joined: 28 Sep 2011
Posts: 132
Re: Often patients with ankle fractures that are stable, and thus do not  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Mar 2012, 12:40
1
I have chosen the answer C for this question:

A. We are not really concerned about general practitioners in this case, so this is irrelevant. Also, if doctors are generally less likely to judge the stability of an ankle fracture correctly, this would be a reason to actually keep doing x-rays - this statement would actually weaken the argument.

B. We are concerned about the "follow-up x-rays" once a fracture has been determined. This answer choice states that "initial x-rays" are ordered for ankle injuries. Although this may seem like a good answer, the situations are not quite the same. Therefore, this is irrelevant information.

C. At first glance, I wasn't sure that this answer was correct. However, I looked at the statement "When a number of follow up x-rays were reviewed..." and determined that in order to strengthen the argument, you might want to close the "weakening" gap. A way to weaken this argument might be to say that all the reviewed x-rays were done by a single orthopedist. In order strengthen this argument, we would counter by saying that we have a very representative sample of patients who were reviewed by many different orthopedists.

D. We are not concerned with ankle fractures that have been surgically repaired (unstable fractures).

E. We only care about ankle fractures in this argument, not about x-rays for fractures in other bones.
Retired Moderator
Joined: 16 Jun 2012
Posts: 988
Location: United States
Re: Often patients with ankle fractures that are stable, and thus do not  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 Apr 2013, 22:00
9
1
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 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.

A - Additional information irrelevant to the discussion
B - Additional information that strengthens the discussion - keep
C - Additional information that strengthens the discussion (to a lesser extent) - keep
D - Info. out of scope - talking about ankle fractures that are surgically reparied.
E - Not relevant.

Between B and C, I choose B. Wait for your responses. Thanks

GENERAL METHOD:

In CR, Strengthen and Assumption are always considered the most difficult questions. To solve Strengthen question, we should:
- Identify the conclusion - This is what you're trying to strengthen. MOST important.
- Personalize the argument if you can.
- Look for weaknesses in the argument - It seems contradict, but in real GMAT, the answers are always used to eliminate that weakness. Frankly, that's the logic GMAC uses

Avoid Shell game that always support a conclusion that is similar to, but slightly different from the one in the question.

APPLY:

Premise: Often patients with ankle fractures that are stable, --> do not require surgery, are given follow-up x-rays
Premise: When follow-up x-rays were reviewed, however, 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

What is the weakness: Do the follow-up x-rays that were reviewed by the doctors represent for all follow-up x-rays in general - KEY Point.
Best answer will eliminate that weakness.

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

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. - WRONG - SHELL GAME - Please re-read the conclusion, "it is a waste of money to order follow-up x-rays of ankle fracture initially judged stable". The conclusion is only about the ankle fracture initially judged stable, not all ankle injuries in general. On the other hand, B is TOO GENERAL, It does NOT support a conclusion we need to strengthen.

C. X-rays of patients of many different orthopedists working in several hospitals were reviewed. - CORRECT - Eliminate the weakness perfectly.

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

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

I hope it could help.

_____________________________
Please kudo if my post helps. Thank you
_________________
Please +1 KUDO if my post helps. Thank you.

"Designing cars consumes you; it has a hold on your spirit which is incredibly powerful. It's not something you can do part time, you have do it with all your heart and soul or you're going to get it wrong."

Chris Bangle - Former BMW Chief of Design.
IIMA, IIMC School Moderator
Joined: 04 Sep 2016
Posts: 1366
Location: India
WE: Engineering (Other)
Re: Often patients with ankle fractures that are stable, and thus do not  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Feb 2018, 23:17
Hi GMATNinja generis GMATNinjaTwo

How do we perform PoE for B and C when RESULTS or outcomes are NOT known?
_________________
It's the journey that brings us happiness not the destination.

Feeling stressed, you are not alone!!
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Status: GMAT and GRE tutor
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 2864
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
Re: Often patients with ankle fractures that are stable, and thus do not  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Mar 2018, 16:28
2
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!
_________________
GMAT/GRE tutor @ www.gmatninja.com (we're hiring!) | GMAT Club Verbal Expert | Instagram | Blog | Bad at PMs

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

YouTube LIVE verbal webinars: Series 1: SC & CR Fundamentals | Series 2: Developing a Winning GMAT Mindset | Series 3: Word Problem Bootcamp + Next-Level SC & CR

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
Joined: 15 Nov 2016
Posts: 140
GMAT 1: 480 Q34 V22
Re: Often patients with ankle fractures that are stable, and thus do not  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 Apr 2018, 05:31
1
This is a strengthen the argument question.

Like weaken, strengthen questions also require us to isolate the conclusion. As we will be looking for the answer that makes our belief stronger on the premise-conclusion relationship such as analogies, survey, reports, statistical data etc.

Also, protect the missing information
a) by keeping any option that fills the gap
b) by eliminating the answer that attacks the missing information

Expert suggestions: How do we know if what these experts or analysts think, matters? Eliminate any option that has the expert’s opinion.

Similarly, either introducing other examples doesn’t strengthen or introducing exceptions doesn’t weaken since in both the cases, there is just no way to automatically know that those other cases carry a sufficient resemblance to who or what the argument is about.

Causality and Strengthen Questions: The steps taken to prove a cause-effect relationship is strong requires the OPPOSITE steps as weakening:
o Prove that when the cause occurs, effect always takes place
o Prove that when effect occurs, it occurs because of the cause.
o Eliminate any other reasons that cause the effect.
o Prove that the relationship between C -> E cannot be reversed.
o Prove that statistical improbability won't occur.

Conclusion: Therefore, it is a waste of money to order follow-up x-rays of ankle fracture initially judged stable.
Assumption: The data that was used to review was from a good source and shows the correct representation.
A) Out of scope.
B) This option also doesn’t reinforce the idea that it is a waste of money to order follow-up x-rays of ankle fracture initially judged stable.
C) This option tells us that the data in review was not biased. Keep this option.
D) This provides an alternate reason why the x-ray may be required.
E) Other than ankle bone is out of the scope of this argument.
C certainly helps and is the answer.

Director
Joined: 12 Feb 2015
Posts: 917
Re: Often patients with ankle fractures that are stable, and thus do not  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Jun 2018, 11:35
Step 1: Read the question stem:- Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?----> normal strengthen question!!

Step 2:- Analyze the stimulus:-
1) Often patients with ankle fractures that are stable, and thus do not require surgery, are given follow-up x-ray ----> fractures - no need for surgery - x-ray is enough

2) because their orthopedists are concerned about possibly having misjudged the stability of the fracture. ------> x-ray so that --- reconfirm if everything is alright i.e. orthopedists have not misjudged in the first instance

3) 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. -------> reconfirmation on reviewing several X-rays - orthopedists have NOT misjudged

4) Therefore, it is a waste of money to order follow-up x-rays of ankle fracture initially judged stable. --------->henceforth no reconfirmation on whether "orthopedists have misjudged or not" - they always judge correctly that there is no need for surgery --henceforth no need for even an X-ray.

Step 3:- Some prethinking:- some additional information which confirms x rays are not useful & there is no risk if the xray is not taken. orthopedists judge correctly

Step 4: Review, analyze, eliminate wrong ones and select the right option:-

(A) Doctors who are general practitioners rather than orthopedists are less likely than orthopedists to judge the stability of an ankle fracture correctly. -----> so what???-Clearly out of scope. No mention about the importance of x-rays

(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. ---> mentions about x-rays but the claim in this option is already mentioned in the stimulus & should raise suspicion and doubt if this is the correct answer choice, there is no additional info which would strengthen the argument...we can hang on to this one for a while.

(C) X-rays of patients of many different orthopedists working in several hospitals were reviewed.---------> now look at this one, I love it!! orthopedists judge correctly - sample size is adequate to conclude that this phenomenon is seen across several hospitals and many different orthopedists - i.e. orthopedists judge correctly - definitely a new information and strengthens the argument.

(D) The healing of ankle fractures that have been surgically repaired is always checked by means of a follow-up x-ray. ------> increases the importance of Xrays---actually this option weakens the argument.

(E) Orthopedists routinely order follow-up x-rays for fractures of bone other than ankle bones.---->out of scope, the stimulus speaks about ankle fractures only & the stimulus does not establish any relationship between fractures of bone & fractures of ankle bones.

Option C is the best answer choice!!
_________________
________________
Manish

"Only I can change my life. No one can do it for me"
Manager
Joined: 18 Feb 2017
Posts: 59
Location: India
GMAT 1: 650 Q45 V30
GPA: 3.35
Re: Often patients with ankle fractures that are stable, and thus do not  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 Jun 2018, 11:52
GMATNinja
hello sir

if option E read as "orthopedists routinely order follow-up X-rays for fractures of ankle bone."
would the option strengthen the conclusion that"it is a waste of money to order follow-up X-rays of ankle fractures initially judges stable."?
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Status: GMAT and GRE tutor
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 2864
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
Re: Often patients with ankle fractures that are stable, and thus do not  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Jun 2018, 08:34
JAIN09 wrote:
GMATNinja
hello sir

if option E read as "orthopedists routinely order follow-up X-rays for fractures of ankle bone."
would the option strengthen the conclusion that"it is a waste of money to order follow-up X-rays of ankle fractures initially judges stable."?

Even with that change, (E) wouldn't do much to strengthen the conclusion. We already know from the passage that, "Often patients with ankle fractures that are stable... are given follow-up x-rays." So your version of (E) wouldn't really give us any new information.

But don't torture yourself trying to come up with your own versions of the answer choices. As long as you understand why (E), as written, is incorrect, you're in great shape!
_________________
GMAT/GRE tutor @ www.gmatninja.com (we're hiring!) | GMAT Club Verbal Expert | Instagram | Blog | Bad at PMs

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

YouTube LIVE verbal webinars: Series 1: SC & CR Fundamentals | Series 2: Developing a Winning GMAT Mindset | Series 3: Word Problem Bootcamp + Next-Level SC & CR

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.
Director
Joined: 12 Feb 2015
Posts: 917
Re: Often patients with ankle fractures that are stable, and thus do not  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Oct 2018, 04:04

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.
_________________
________________
Manish

"Only I can change my life. No one can do it for me"
Manager
Joined: 13 Jun 2012
Posts: 199
Location: United States
WE: Supply Chain Management (Computer Hardware)
Re: Often patients with ankle fractures that are stable, and thus do not  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Oct 2018, 08:18
Vithal wrote:
Official Guide for GMAT Verbal Review, 2nd Edition

Practice Question
Question No.: 45
Page: 134

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.

I choose C because - the statement says " orthopedists are concerned about possibly having misjudged the stability of the fracture" and hence they are asking for more Xrays. to strengthen the statement we need to show that there is an error of judgement by the orthopedists to order for X-rays

In C we have that-- this common phenomenon -- the author has reach the conclusion after many Xrays were reviewed from various hospitals.
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 9706
Location: Pune, India
Re: Often patients with ankle fractures that are stable, and thus do not  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Oct 2018, 00:06
2
Vithal wrote:
Official Guide for GMAT Verbal Review, 2nd Edition

Practice Question
Question No.: 45
Page: 134

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.

Conclusion:
- it is a waste of money to order follow-up x-rays of ankle fracture initially judged stable.
In other words, when a fracture is initially judged stable, it is stable. No need to get a follow up x ray. The orthos do a get enough job when they review the fracture as stable initially.

So we need to strengthen our conclusion.

(A) Doctors who are general practitioners rather than orthopedists are less likely than orthopedists to judge the stability of an ankle fracture correctly.
This does not strengthen our conclusion. We don't know whether sometimes general practitioners judge the initial stability of fractures but if they do, actually we do need to have a follow up x ray (since they may not do as good a job as orthos)

(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.
Irrelevant. This talks about injuries which are not fractures. We are only concerned about ankle fractures which are initially judged stable. Rest of the injury universe is irrelevant to us.

(C) X-rays of patients of many different orthopedists working in several hospitals were reviewed.
This is interesting. We are concluding that we don't need follow up x rays, that orthos are capable of identifying stable fractures initially itself. If we had reviewed various diff orthos from various diff hospitals, it means that generally, orthos are capable. It strengthens our conclusion. Say if most of the x rays reviewed were of a single ortho, can we say that we don't need to get a second x ray done? What if that particular ortho is capable but others are not? Checking the skills of various orthos helps better establish that a second x ray if not needed. This is the answer

(D) The healing of ankle fractures that have been surgically repaired is always checked by means of a follow-up x-ray.
This is talking about ankle fractures which are not deemed stable initially (since they need surgery). Again, this is outside the scope of our argument. What happens with unstable ankle fractures we don't care. The only relevant topic is "ankle fractures which are initially judged stable".

(E) Orthopedists routinely order follow-up x-rays for fractures of bone other than ankle bones.
Again, as we said before, rest of the injury universe is irrelevant to us.

_________________
Karishma
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor

VP
Joined: 14 Feb 2017
Posts: 1196
Location: Australia
Concentration: Technology, Strategy
Schools: LBS '22
GMAT 1: 560 Q41 V26
GMAT 2: 550 Q43 V23
GMAT 3: 650 Q47 V33
GMAT 4: 650 Q44 V36
WE: Management Consulting (Consulting)
Often patients with ankle fractures that are stable, and thus do not  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

Updated on: 09 Dec 2018, 20:43
2
I actually ruled C out of scope, so I had to review the OG and my CR Bible notes to understand why this was in fact correct.

Conclusion: It is a waste of money to order follow-up x-rays of ankle fractures initially judged stable
Why?
P1: Follow-up x-rays are given out of concern of patient's doctors (Sentence 1)
P2: A number of x-rays were reviewed, revealing that all the fractures that had initially been judged stable were found to have healed correctly (Sentence 2).

How do you strengthen an Argument? [straight from my flash card summaries of CR bible]
A. Identify and analyse the conclusion – this is what you need to strengthen
- Ask “would this answer choice assist the author in some way”
B. Find missing link between premise and conclusion – these can be assumptions made by the author
C. Look for weaknesses in the argument – because by eliminating this weakness we strengthen the answer.
D. If an argument relies upon surveys/ analogies – then find an answer choice that strengthens the analogy or survey, or establishes their soundness;.

Error Analysis
A - GP vs Ortho debate is irrelevant to the conclusion that we need to strengthen
B - I initially thought this was correct by way of POE, but having understood the correct sentence I see that this is incorrect as the conclusion is only concerned with ankle fractures, not ankle injuries
C - "many...were reviewed" - meaning the sample size may in fact be representative of the population, thus allowing us to conclude with greater accuracy
D - Irrelevant to the conclusion. We already know that ankle fractures are checked by means of a follow-up practice. The discussion point is whether we should curtail this practice, so how does D strengthen this judgement that we should reduce follow-ups?
E - Completely irrelevant. This is making a comment on the general practice now, so how does it help us strengthen the conclusion that we should curtail follow-up x-rays?
_________________
Goal: Q49, V41

+1 Kudos if I have helped you

Originally posted by dcummins on 01 Dec 2018, 03:21.
Last edited by dcummins on 09 Dec 2018, 20:43, edited 1 time in total.
VP
Joined: 09 Mar 2016
Posts: 1230
Often patients with ankle fractures that are stable, and thus do not  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 Dec 2018, 08:06
GMATNinja wrote:
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!

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
Often patients with ankle fractures that are stable, and thus do not   [#permalink] 02 Dec 2018, 08:06

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 25 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by