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

It is currently 17 Dec 2018, 07:07

R1 Decisions:

Michigan Ross Chat (US calls are expected today)  |  UCLA Anderson Chat  (Calls expected to start at 7am PST; Applicants from Asia will hear first)


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
Events & Promotions in December
PrevNext
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
2526272829301
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
303112345
Open Detailed Calendar
  • 10 Keys to nail DS and CR questions

     December 17, 2018

     December 17, 2018

     06:00 PM PST

     07:00 PM PST

    Join our live webinar and learn how to approach Data Sufficiency and Critical Reasoning problems, how to identify the best way to solve each question and what most people do wrong.
  • R1 Admission Decisions: Estimated Decision Timelines and Chat Links for Major BSchools

     December 17, 2018

     December 17, 2018

     10:00 PM PST

     11:00 PM PST

    From Dec 5th onward, American programs will start releasing R1 decisions. Chat Rooms: We have also assigned chat rooms for every school so that applicants can stay in touch and exchange information/update during decision period.

Physicians have disagreed for years about whether they should be

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

Hide Tags

Manager
Manager
User avatar
S
Joined: 08 Jan 2018
Posts: 59
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Technology
GMAT 1: 680 Q50 V32
GPA: 4
Physicians have disagreed for years about whether they should be  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 May 2018, 22:02
Question 1
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

based on 41 sessions

54% (02:59) correct 46% (03:58) wrong

HideShow timer Statistics

Question 2
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

based on 47 sessions

73% (01:06) correct 27% (01:01) wrong

HideShow timer Statistics

Question 3
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

based on 45 sessions

44% (02:02) correct 56% (01:14) wrong

HideShow timer Statistics

Question 4
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

based on 46 sessions

31% (00:56) correct 69% (01:32) wrong

HideShow timer Statistics

Physicians have disagreed for years about whether they should be involved in capital punishment of convicted criminals. Some physicians vigorously support participation, often arguing that organs should first be removed for transplantation. One frequent objection to capital punishment is that sometimes techniques don‘t work the first time, resulting in lingering, painful deaths. If physicians would guarantee that a patient would not die in such a way, they would gain the trust of some patients.

For any kind of killing, some physicians favour the creation of ―designated killer‖ technicians. This would free physicians from the taint of killing, keeping their image pure and their hands clean. But is this workable? Insofar as the designated killers are mere technicians, what prevents them from abusing their role? Wouldn‘t it be better for physicians, torn between saving life and honouring patients‘ wishes, to be reluctant killers? Wouldn‘t physicians know best what to do if something went wrong?

Many physicians paradoxically endorse mercy killing but refuse to do it themselves. Nor do they think other physicians should kill. Physicians who support mercy killing but who don‘t want physicians to kill commonly emphasize the importance of maintaining the role of the physician as a healer and preserver of life. One poll of American physicians showed 60 percent favouring euthanasia but less than half would perform it themselves. To such physicians, taking life radically conflicts with the symbolic image of physicians. Such conflict, they say, destroys trust in physicians.

Discussing this problem of designated killers in 1988, New England Journal of Medicine editor Marcia Angell called the idea ―an unsavoury prospect.‖ She suggested that mercy killing may one day be the end point of a continuum of good patient care. She asks how any physician can excuse himself from this most basic notion? Dr. Angell concluded, ―Perhaps, also, those who favour legalizing euthanasia but would not perform it should rethink their position.

Dr. Angell implies that it is hypocritical to favour mercy killing but would be unwilling to perform it. Is this true? There are at least two schools of thought. Some thinkers believe that if one favours, say, meat-eating, one should be willing to kill and prepare animals for eating oneself. Others conclude differently, seeing no reason why each person who favours a position must be willing to implement it.

Must you be willing to kill a serial murderer to favour capital punishment? Critics say one must. Being face-to-face with one‘s victims creates basic moral qualms and such moral restraints are important to respect. In Stanley Milgram‘s studies on obedience, naive subjects under an experimenter‘s control were dramatically less willing to inflict injury as the victims became closer to subjects under study. In contrast, as the consequences of actions became more remote, such as by pressing a switch which released a bomb on an unseen, unknown populace, it became easier to inflict injury.
1. Consider the main points that the author makes throughout the passage. The primary purpose of this passage is to:

A. speculate on the symbolism of the physician as healer.
B. portray those doctors who argue against administering euthanasia as hypocritical.
C. cast and explain the different arguments surrounding euthanasia.
D. introduce the concept of ―designated killers‖ to a receptive audience.
E. convince doctors to take up euthanasia



2. According to the passage, which of the following is most likely to be true of those physicians who favour the creation of so-called ―designated killers?

A. They believe it is good patient care to provide a continuum of services.
B. They seek to keep the physician remote from acts of harm.
C. They understand that it raises a conflict with their opinions on capital punishment.
D. They fear abuse of the privilege that comes from this unique role.
E. They are emotionally weak



3. According not necessarily to the author, but to those in favour of euthanasia specifically, what is a potentially negative aspect of the use of ―designated killers?

A. They would disrupt the continuum of patient care provided by a physician.
B. They might release physicians from an association with death.
C. Their use might prevent lingering, painful deaths.
D. The prescription of euthanasia may become more prevalent as physicians are removed from the act itself.
E. They might not be as qualified as the actual doctors



4. The reader can conclude that a basic assumption of those in favour of using ―designated killers‖ is that:

A. the practice would evolve into a readily available medical option.
B. very few physicians could be convinced to assume the role and duties.
C. physicians would have to be present with the patient in order to conduct euthanasia.
D. many physicians are reluctant to administer euthanasia because they are not in favour of capital punishment.
E. they are eventually complying with the patients‘ wishes


MBA Section Director
User avatar
V
Affiliations: GMATClub
Joined: 22 May 2017
Posts: 1493
Concentration: Nonprofit
GPA: 4
WE: Engineering (Computer Software)
Re: Physicians have disagreed for years about whether they should be  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 02 Oct 2018, 18:05

+1 kudos to the posts containing answer explanations of all questions


_________________

New project wSTAT(which Schools To Apply To?)

GMATClub School Ambassador

B-School app with GRE

New - RC Butler - 2 RC's everyday

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
G
Joined: 05 Feb 2018
Posts: 380
Location: India
Concentration: Finance
GPA: 2.77
WE: General Management (Other)
Physicians have disagreed for years about whether they should be invol  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 25 Oct 2018, 00:14
Physicians have disagreed for years about whether they should be involved in capital punishment of convicted criminals. Some physicians vigorously support participation, often arguing that organs should first be removed for transplantation. One frequent objection to capital punishment is that sometimes techniques don‘t work the first time, resulting in lingering, painful deaths. If physicians would guarantee that a patient would not die in such a way, they would gain the trust of some patients.

For any kind of killing, some physicians favour the creation of ―designated killer‖ technicians. This would free physicians from the taint of killing, keeping their image pure and their hands clean. But is this workable? Insofar as the designated killers are mere technicians, what prevents them from abusing their role? Wouldn‘t it be better for physicians, torn between saving life and honouring patients‘ wishes, to be reluctant killers? Wouldn‘t physicians know best what to do if something went wrong?

Many physicians paradoxically endorse mercy killing but refuse to do it themselves. Nor do they think other physicians should kill. Physicians who support mercy killing but who don‘t want physicians to kill commonly emphasize the importance of maintaining the role of the physician as a healer and preserver of life. One poll of American physicians showed 60 percent favouring euthanasia but less than half would perform it themselves. To such physicians, taking life radically conflicts with the symbolic image of physicians. Such conflict, they say, destroys trust in physicians.

Discussing this problem of designated killers in 1988, New England Journal of Medicine editor Marcia Angell called the idea ―an unsavoury prospect.‖ She suggested that mercy killing may one day be the end point of a continuum of good patient care. She asks how any physician can excuse himself from this most basic notion? Dr. Angell concluded, ―Perhaps, also, those who favour legalizing euthanasia but would not perform it should rethink their position.‖

Dr. Angell implies that it is hypocritical to favour mercy killing but would be unwilling to perform it. Is this true? There are at least two schools of thought. Some thinkers believe that if one favours, say, meat-eating, one should be willing to kill and prepare animals for eating oneself. Others conclude differently, seeing no reason why each person who favours a position must be willing to implement it.

Must you be willing to kill a serial murderer to favour capital punishment? Critics say one must. Being face-to-face with one‘s victims creates basic moral qualms and such moral restraints are important to respect. In Stanley Milgram‘s studies on obedience, naive subjects under an experimenter‘s control were dramatically less willing to inflict injury as the victims became closer to subjects under study. In contrast, as the consequences of actions became more remote, such as by pressing a switch which released a bomb on an unseen, unknown populace, it became easier to inflict injury.
1. Consider the main points that the author makes throughout the passage. The primary purpose of this passage is to:
A. speculate on the symbolism of the physician as healer.
B. portray those doctors who argue against administering euthanasia as hypocritical.
C. cast and explain the different arguments surrounding euthanasia.
D. introduce the concept of ―designated killers‖ to a receptive audience.
E. convince doctors to take up euthanasia

2. According to the passage, which of the following is most likely to be true of those physicians who favour the creation of so-called ―designated killers?‖
A. They believe it is good patient care to provide a continuum of services.
B. They seek to keep the physician remote from acts of harm.
C. They understand that it raises a conflict with their opinions on capital punishment.
D. They fear abuse of the privilege that comes from this unique role.
E. They are emotionally weak

3. According not necessarily to the author, but to those in favour of euthanasia specifically, what is a potentially negative aspect of the use of ―designated killers?‖
A. They would disrupt the continuum of patient care provided by a physician.
B. They might release physicians from an association with death.
C. Their use might prevent lingering, painful deaths.
D. The prescription of euthanasia may become more prevalent as physicians are removed from the act itself.
E. They might not be as qualified as the actual doctors

4. The reader can conclude that a basic assumption of those in favour of using ―designated killers‖ is that:
A. the practice would evolve into a readily available medical option.
B. very few physicians could be convinced to assume the role and duties.
C. physicians would have to be present with the patient in order to conduct euthanasia.
D. many physicians are reluctant to administer euthanasia because they are not in favour of capital punishment.
E. they are eventually complying with the patients‘ wishes


_________________

Hit the the kudos button if you like the post

Verbal Resources:-
1.Aristotle RC-99 The Definitive RC Guide-Collection of 100 RC questions 2.Aristotle SC Grail -Collection of 100 SC questions3.Vocabulary List for the GMAT RC,CR and SC from the official guide

MBA Resources:-
1.Top 25 US MBA Application Fees 2018-2019 2.Top 20 US MBA Tuition Fees 2018-2019

Thanks

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
G
Joined: 05 Feb 2018
Posts: 380
Location: India
Concentration: Finance
GPA: 2.77
WE: General Management (Other)
Re: Physicians have disagreed for years about whether they should be invol  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 25 Oct 2018, 00:15

Topic and Scope

- The author discusses the paradox of doctors who support
euthanasia but who are reluctant to carry it out.

Mapping the Passage


¶1 introduces the idea of physicians becoming involved in capital punishment as
example of alleviating sometimes painful death.
¶2 states that many doctors favour "designated killer" technicians but that maybe this
isn't right decision.
¶3 describes the paradox of physicians who support euthanasia but who would not
themselves perform it.
¶4 presents an expert opinion that physicians should have a consistent approach
towards mercy killing (Marcia Angell).
¶s5 and 6 describe two positions on ¶4'sparadox: one that physicians who support
mercy killing should be responsible for it; the second that they need not.
_________________

Hit the the kudos button if you like the post

Verbal Resources:-
1.Aristotle RC-99 The Definitive RC Guide-Collection of 100 RC questions 2.Aristotle SC Grail -Collection of 100 SC questions3.Vocabulary List for the GMAT RC,CR and SC from the official guide

MBA Resources:-
1.Top 25 US MBA Application Fees 2018-2019 2.Top 20 US MBA Tuition Fees 2018-2019

Thanks

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
G
Joined: 05 Feb 2018
Posts: 380
Location: India
Concentration: Finance
GPA: 2.77
WE: General Management (Other)
Physicians have disagreed for years about whether they should be  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post Updated on: 25 Oct 2018, 04:59

Answers and Explanations OE


1)

A rare global question: review topic, scope, and purpose and then simply find their closest match in the answer choices. While three choices are off topic and/or scope,
(C) fits with the overall purpose of describing the conflicting arguments about euthanasia.
(A): Out of Scope. The author doesn‘t deal with this subject in any depth, and certainly not as the overall purpose of the passage.
(B): Faulty Use of Detail. While the author implies that some people might believe this about physicians, the author doesn‘t make it the focus of the passage.
(C): The correct answer
(D): Faulty Use of Detail. The author mentions this in ¶3, but it‘s not the purpose of the passage as a whole.
(E): The passage tries to do no such ‗convincing‘
Strategy Point: Be sure to keep an eye out for the author’s position. When the author takes pains to be objective, as is the case in this passage, questions will almost always test to see whether you’ve picked up on this.

2)

The ―According to the passage...‖ phrasing is a sure cue to refer back to the passage, using your map to direct your focus. Where are designated killers mentioned? Go back to ¶2 to find out what sort of physicians favour this approach: physicians who want to be free from ―the taint of killing.‖ Choice (B) rephrases the same.
(A): Faulty Use of Detail. Marcia Angell argues in ¶4 that mercy killing will become part of a continuum, but she does this while opposing designated killers.
(B): The correct answer
(C): Out of Scope. The author doesn‘t argue in this part of the passage that a conflict exists, much less that the physicians recognize it.
(D): Out of Scope. There‘s no evidence in the paragraph or elsewhere that doctors fear the designated killer would abuse the privilege.
(E): Out of Scope.

3)

Where are the downsides of designated killers mentioned? Refer back to ¶s 2 and 4, where the author raises questions about designated killers and the editor of the NEJM raises objections. (A) is the objection raised by the editor: she argues that someday euthanasia will be part of good patient care and that physicians should be in on the action.
(A): The correct answer
(B): Opposite. This is one of the arguments that physicians who favor designated killers make.
(C): Distortion: physicians, not designated killers, would prevent lingering, painful deaths.
(D): Out of Scope. This argument isn‘t made in favor of physician-sponsored euthanasia.
(E): Out of Scope.

4)

Go back to ¶s 2 and 4 to review the idea of the designated killer. Both those who support and oppose the idea suggest that it provides a degree of removal between the physicians and the act of death. An assumption of this, therefore, must be that physicians won‘t be the designated killers. If this is denied, the argument falls apart, a sure sign of a sound assumption.
(A): Out of Scope. This would have no effect on the argument: denying it wouldn‘t necessarily weaken the contention that the use of designated killers is a bad idea.
(B): The correct answer
(C): Opposite. This is essentially the opposite of the correct assumption. The idea of designated killers assumes the absence of the physician.
(D): Out of Scope. This also has no effect on the argument: If it‘s denied, the argument against designated killers remains just as strong.
(E): This does not have to be an assumption.
_________________

Hit the the kudos button if you like the post

Verbal Resources:-
1.Aristotle RC-99 The Definitive RC Guide-Collection of 100 RC questions 2.Aristotle SC Grail -Collection of 100 SC questions3.Vocabulary List for the GMAT RC,CR and SC from the official guide

MBA Resources:-
1.Top 25 US MBA Application Fees 2018-2019 2.Top 20 US MBA Tuition Fees 2018-2019

Thanks


Originally posted by GmatWizard on 25 Oct 2018, 00:18.
Last edited by GmatWizard on 25 Oct 2018, 04:59, edited 1 time in total.
Manager
Manager
User avatar
S
Joined: 30 May 2018
Posts: 85
Concentration: General Management, Marketing
GMAT 1: 750 Q49 V45
GPA: 3.45
WE: Other (Retail)
Re: Physicians have disagreed for years about whether they should be  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 25 Oct 2018, 04:44
10 Mins , 1 Question wrong.
Whats wrong with answer option E in Question 3 , anyone ?
_________________

Kudos if you agree , Comment if you don't !!!

GMAT Club Bot
Re: Physicians have disagreed for years about whether they should be &nbs [#permalink] 25 Oct 2018, 04:44
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Physicians have disagreed for years about whether they should be

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


Copyright

GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

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

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.