Patient: Doctor, I read an article that claimed that the first few hou

Would like to know the source of the question. Not happy with any option.

The gist is that the patient feels that the "immediate after-birth mother-infant bond is very important in building a healthy relation." Perhaps like a necessary condition.
The doctor says that the absence of this bond does not harm the relation. This bond is not sufficient for healthy future relation. It does give a head start but many other factors are involved in a healthy future bond.

So it seems that the doc says that absence of this bond is not necessary and there are other important factors too.

(A) doesn't seem appealing. The analogy it talks about is the "instant glue" one. The doctor introduces and rejects it to reduce patient's concern. But one would think that the analogy should have been given by the patient and she should be the one rejecting it to reduce patient's concern.

(B) She cites evidence to show that the patient’s worry is unfounded.

No evidence is given by her.

(C) She misinterprets the patient’s explanation of her concern.

The patient seems to feel that this bond is necessary for future relation and the doctor tries to convince that it is not sufficient for future relation (other factors are involved too). In this way it could be said that the doctor misinterprets the patient's explanation of her concern.

(D) She establishes that the article that the patient read was in error.

She does not "establish" that the article was erroneous. She takes a tangent explanation to alleviate the patient's concerns.

(E) She names other factors that are more important in creating a mother-infant bond.

She does not say "more important". She just says that many factors are involved.
_________________

The doctor does which one of the following in her reply to her patient?
.
Looks very good. The doctor rejects an "instant glue" analogy. She does so because the patient expresses concern.
-- A person can both make an analogy and then reject that analogy.
Such rejection does not have to be in response to the other person's having brought up the analogy.
-- In fact, one common way to make an argument is to analogize the situation at issue to something else that is often stark or dramatic and then to point out that the analogy does not hold.


The doctor cites no scientific evidence when she responds to the patient's worry.
No studies. No other articles. She offers her opinion.
She asserts that no harm has been done, which she supports
by rejecting the instant glue analogy and by asserting/opining that other factors over time ("building") are important. ELIMINATE.


Absurd. Not one word suggests that the doctor misinterprets the patient's concern. ELIMINATE.


Too specific and too strong, though possibly a keeper.
We know only one detail of the article.
-- the doctor addresses the detail. She makes assertions about the detail, but contrary assertions do not "establish" error.
They suggest error.
Cast doubt on the article's accuracy? Sure.
Establish that the article was in error? No. Too strong.
KEEP, but doubtful.


Inaccurate. "Names" is specific; the doctor is not specific.

selale caught and articulated the distinction well in THIS POST, here. +1
(Belated welcome to GMAT Club, selale . )

This option is incorrect because it uses the fatal phrase "names the other factors."
The doctor mentions that there ARE other factors involved in building the mother-child relationship.

The phrase "more important" is troublesome, too.

Name means to specify.
The doctor mentions but does not specify "other factors."

She does not name a single factor or the general KIND of even one those many factors.

Nor does she say clearly that the factors are MORE important.
-- We could argue that the doctor implies that those factors are more important than this single factor.

But her failure to name even one factor, let alone plural factorS, makes this option wrong. ELIMINATE

***

ArupRS , option (E) must look tempting (it's the second favorite choice),
but it is not accurate.
The verb "name" and the verb phrase "mention generally" are not synonymous.

What option E describes is not the same as what the doctor does.

By contrast in (A), an analogy is exactly what the doctor uses when she says,
"Mother-infant bonding is not like an 'instant glue' that cements your relationship forever."

Which is the better of the two answers, A or D?

• Option (A) is better than (D)
-- Option (A) correctly characterizes a specific detail (rejects the "instant glue" analogy) in the correct context (the mother's concern).

-- In (D), the phrase "establishes that the article was in error" is too strong. The doctor's contrary assertions suggest but do not establish error. (D) is not as accurate as (A).

This question is pretty straightforward.

From current stats, many people believe that mentioning a category of items (other factors)
is equivalent to naming the items in that category. Those two actions are quite different.

In CR, keep your eye on every word -- in this case, verbs.

Hope that analysis helps.

Answer A is correct.
_________________

In my opinion, E is incorrect because the physician doesn't name the factors or specify them, she solely states that they exist and evenly contribute to the bond.

The patient's concern is the relation as well.

First few hrs -> Bond -> Start of a healthy relation
Her question: Can you assure me that my relationship with my baby has not been permanently harmed...?

Doc: Your relationship with your child has not been harmed by the separation. ...
_________________

There are no analogies there; in fact, the doctor agrees with the patient, or, to be correct, with the article (Having your infant with you during the period immediately after birth does give your relationship a head start).

I think the answer is B, since she cites that there are other factors which influence the relationships between a mother and her child, which is evidence against the patient's worry.

Render - first, welcome to GMAT Club!

Second, there is an analogy, but maybe the words "instant glue" were not clear.

The doctor does not agree with the article.
-- Doctor: Your relationship [despite your not having instant contact with your baby after birth] has not been harmed.

ANALOGY: "Immediate bonding after birth" is not similar to "instant glue" in which one thing is sealed to another immediately, very strongly, and perhaps permanently by that instant glue.

-- With respect to answer B, please see my post HERE.
Offering an opinion is not the same as citing evidence.
Further, a "head start" simply means that the bonding starts earlier in time.
-- Suppose that two people are not racing against one another but both runners want to finish a 10K "race."
Person A starts at the gun.
Person B shows up 5 minutes late.
Person A has a head start on B — but B can still run the face and finish in the time it would have taken him anyway.
-- The implication of "head start" can mean "better in the long run," but given all the other things that the doctor says, in this context it means simply "started earlier, but that does not matter because building requires an ongoing process
that can be initiated immediately after or a few days after birth."

I can see why (B) is tempting, but in this question the authors have done what GMAC does:
present tempting alternatives that upon reflection, do not really fit or do not fit nearly as well as (A).
_________________

I think its E because the doctor says "but many factors are involved in building a strong and lasting relationship between a mother and her child"

A is wrong because doctor agrees and says that there is a head start

B is wrong because there is no evidence stated, i think it's too strong a word

C - there is no misinterpretation...inface the doctor agreed with the patient

D is out of scope

Posted from my mobile device

B and E are close for the run-up to be correct choices.
In B- it says doctor cites evidence, however, doctor only names factors.
E should be the correct answer.

generis VeritasKarishma

Dear experts,
Can you please explain why E is not right and the rationale behind selecting A.

Regards,
Arup

"Instant glue" seems like a new concept or maybe i am not familiar with it. Could you please throw some more light on it?
VeritasKarishma generis Render

Thanks!

neha283 , "instant glue" is in quotation marks to indicate that it is a special kind of glue.

Even if you don't know that the phrase refers to glue that in English is called "super glue" or "crazy glue," the phrase "instant glue" is descriptive: glue that forms an immediate and probably unbreakable bond.

The doctor is saying that a mother's holding a baby immediately after birth is a nice thing, but the action is not ritualistic "instant glue" in which the bond between mother and child is instantly (and stickily) established.

Google "instant glue" "super glue" "gorilla glue" and "crazy glue." They are fast-acting glues that make things stick together for a long time.

HERE is an entry with a short video in which a thin rubber tube is instant-glued to a heavy bowling ball (probably 10 lbs or 4.5 kg). The glue dries quickly. The presenter picks up the heavy ball with the little tube.

Hope that helps.
_________________

Hi generis
I thought instant glue was some new jargon for a concept in reference to GMAT. I am aware of usual glue though. Thank you!

Check TWIN Must be True question here: https://gmatclub.com/forum/patient-doct ... 14649.html
_________________

If "rejecting" - strong word- is accepted in the answer then "evidence" as well as "more important factors" are subtle enough to be accepted. None of the option as per me fits the solution.

Could anyone you please explain which case is coorect here?

CASE 1: WHEN 'A' IS CONSIDERED INCORRECT:

A is Incorrect:
Patient refers to a study which CLAIMED that "first few hours after birth are very important to establish bond"! AND NOT THAT "if the bond is not established within first few hours, it hampers the bond"

Option A would be correct or very much possible to be correct if it was the latter case, as to state something otherwise, the Doctor would have to REJECT what the study claimed.
But here, Doctor state something on op of the former case.

E is Correct:
Because Doctor did state a few other factors proving to the patient that the claim made by the study does not hold entirely. THereby, reducing the patient's concern.


CASE WHEN 'A' IS CORRECT:

I believe it has to do with the word "analogy", which can be overlooked by anyone, and which means : "a comparison between one thing and another, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification"

A is correct:
Because doctor does NOT REJECT the study, but the "analogy" presented by the patient.

E is Incorrect:
Because Doctor did mention a few other contributing factors, but said nothing regarding their importance as to which is more important than the other.


I myself gave answer E at first, but if some expert could back the reasoning I explained, then only I can say if my asnwer is right or wrong

Hi

Couple of points here.

i) The second case you mention is largely correct and applicable in this case. It accurately describes why your first case is not applicable (focus on the analogy and not the study itself)

ii) The reason (E) is incorrect, apart from what you have correctly identified, is that (E) states that she "names other factors". The doctor does no such thing - she mentions that there are other factors but does not name them.

Hope this helps.
_________________

Hi VeritasKarishma,

I have a quick question. When I tried to answer this CR question, I thought that there was a shift of scope between the Patient and the Doctor.
In fact, the Patient is asking her doctor about the "bond" and the doctor is answering about the "relationship". Therefore, after reviewing all the options none of them satisfied me.
Was I right or completely wrong?
Thanks !

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
_________________