Although custom prosthetic bone replacements produced through a new co

Thanks for contacting me.

1) State the source. It is not a GMAT-like question.
2) The quality is poor. You have to assume smth to be correct in order to arrive to correct answer. Dont practice poor questions.

to the question itself.

conclusion: custom replacements should still be cost-effective , You must identify conclusion first.
what is asked? we need to strengthen the argument.
how would you do it without reading the answers? look, you need to support the statement that custom replacements should still be cost-effective. So we are basically reduced to cost comparisons (for customers), not time or volume etc. So let A and D out.

B and E are talking about production costs, which are not customers' costs. They are out as well.

We remained with C. Why C is bad? Because you must assume that:
2*"ordinary replacements"(=custom prosthetic bone replacements) minus ordinary replacements < cash for for repeat surgery . This may not be true,since nobody told you that it is lower.
This is why C is bad: it tells you that "The degree to which the use of custom replacements is likely to reduce" without specifyin cost for surgery and degree of reduction for it.

Conclusion: Custom replacements should still be cost-effective.

A. This only compares the additional benefits that you get from a custom prosthetic bone replacement. However, we are trying to compare the cost of switching to a custom bone replacement to its benefits (ie. reduced surgery and recovery time etc.). Therefore, this answer cannot be correct.

B. We are not concerned with how much the cost of the custom replacement has declined because this should already be taken into account in the argument.

C. This is the correct answer. The reason is because the answer to this statement will tell you how often you will need repeat surgeries and this will reduce the benefit you get from switching to the prosthetic bone replacement. Also, you can try using the Variance Test and you should arrive to the same conclusion.

D. We are not concerned with the manufacturing

E. This states something that will occur in the future, but we are concerned with how the custom replacement will affect us now.

Argument
Although custom prosthetic bone replacements produced through a new computer-aided design process will cost more than twice as much as ordinary replacements, custom replacements should still be cost-effective. Not only will surgery and recovery time be reduced, but custom replacements should last longer, thereby reducing the need for further hospital stays.

Question Stem
Which of the following must be studied in order to evaluate the argument presented above?
Evaluate Question - Which option validates or invalidates the conclusion above

Pre-thinking
Custom replacements may last more than twice the amount of time than ordinary replacements
Custom replacements may last less than twice the amount of time than ordinary replacements

Answer Choices
A. The amount of time a patient spends in surgery versus the amount of time spent recovering from surgery
INCORRECT ANSWER - Comparing the time spent in surgery and time spent recovering is not going to help us evaluate this argument

B. The amount by which the cost of producing custom replacements has declined with the introduction of the new technique for producing them
INCORRECT ANSWER - We are not told how much will the cost decrease?

C. The degree to which the use of custom replacements is likely to reduce the need for repeat surgery when compared with the use of ordinary replacements
CORRECT ANSWER - If the custom replacements last longer then they will definitely be cost effective. So this helps us know if these replacements are cost effective

D. The degree to which custom replacements produced with the new technique are more carefully manufactured than are ordinary replacements
INCORRECT ANSWER - carefully manufactured is not important. The quality of the product is not in question here

E. The amount by which custom replacements produced with the new technique will drop in cost as the production procedures become standardized and applicable on a larger scale
INCORRECT ANSWER - Future reduction in the cost is not relevant.

Hi Experts,
I had a tough time convincing myself that OA C is correct. My argument is since we are already given in passage that custom replacements should last longer it indirectly implies that there is relatively proportion by which repeat surgery are to be done for custom replacements than compared to ordinary replacements. Are not we supposed to bring new information (for evaluation of answer choices) in Evaluate Qs ?
Argument understanding:
Fact: Although CPBR cost 2x than ordinary replacement
Conclusion: CPBR are cost effective
Fact 2, supporting conclusion: CPBR shall be cost effective because surgery and recovery time will be less and CPBR needs less repeat surgery, which in turns lead to less utilization of hospital beds and causing smaller dent in patient's pockets.

Let me know if my understanding is correct.

Hi Adkikani,

You are right in your understanding that the correct answer to an evaluate question/consideration should bring in information that is not already given in the argument, because only then can it provide more clarity on the situation.

Now, as per this argument, we know that the author says:
1. CPBR = more than 2x of OR - I have underlined more because in your understanding, you seem to have missed it.
2. However, CPBR should still be more effective.
3. So, because the author deduces point 2, despite point 1, he goes on to give the reason.
4. Reason: 1. surgery and recovery time will go down + 2. CPBR should last longer --> reducing the need for further hospital stays.
5. Fundamentally, the author says that Reason 1 and 2 are areas in which there cost benefits will be realized for CPBR

Notice one thing, the author just says that that CPBR should last longer. To understand the implication of this word, consider an example.

Let's say your friend advises you to buy clothes from a particular store that sells the kind of clothes you like but at more than 2 times the price your usual store sells clothes at. Your friend says that despite this jump in price, the more expensive clothes will be worth it. The reason he cites is that the material used in the more expensive garments is of excellent quality and, therefore, you will need to buy new clothes less frequently than you have to right now.

What's the first thing that comes to your mind when someone makes such a pitch? If you take your friend's consideration on face value, you will be tempted to ask him - OK, but how much less frequently? Do you mean to say that the frequency will decrease by half? Or less than that?

Do you see the line of thought above?

Let me know if you need a little more push in the right direction. I shall do my best to clarify it further.

Cheers!

Hi Neetis5,
I understood your point shown beautifully by example. If my frequency of buying is more (not much less), it shall turn out eventually a costly affair in long run.
However coming back to main argument, the frequency of performing CPBR is known to be in less frequent time interval. Let me reiterate the statement:
custom replacements should last longer.
Since cost effectiveness and frequency are both mentioned in argument what new information did I get in option C?
WR, Arpit.

Hey Arpit,

Thank you for your appreciation.

Two things:
1. Slight correction wrt to your statement below:



In my analysis, I asked you to take the friend's consideration on face value - so we need to accept that the frequency will be less. Therefore, the opposite situation, in which the frequency is more, does not come under consideration. However, what we are interested in finding out is how much less - i.e.the degree to which the frequency will be decreased since that is NOT given to us. So, let's take scenarios here:

A. The frequency decreases by more than half - you currently buy clothes every 2 months, but once you start buying the more expensive ones, you will need to buy them only after every 5 months. So, does this increase your belief in your friend's claim?

B. The frequency decreases marginally - you currently buy clothes every 2 months, but once you start buying the more expensive ones, you will need to buy them only after every 2.5 months. So, does your friend's claim about the expensiveness being worth it still stand as strongly as it did before we found out the degree aspect?

2. In the Official question as well, you are not told how much longer will the replacement last. Will the difference be substantial or not? If not substantial, then can author say authoritatively that the CPRB will be cost effective?

Hope you are able to see what new information the whole "degree" aspect brings along - given that we take it for granted that the replacements will indeed be less frequently.

Cheers!

By process of elimination, we can find that only C makes sense.

The only unsure part is how long the replacements will last. Ordinary methods would have to be replaced often is what is implies. Also notice that the statement says the prosthetics 'should' last longer. Answer C brings this ambiguity out. If we can find the reliability of the implants, we can conclude that the repeat cost will go down.

Hi,

Can someone explain choice E ?

(E) The amount by which custom replacements produced with the new technique will drop in cost as the production procedures become standardized and applicable on a larger scale

If production procedures become standardized and applicable on a larger scale, then the cost could drop either significantly or slightly. If the cost drops significantly, then the conclusion of the argument is strengthened. On the other hand if the cost drops slightly, then the conclusion is weakened ?

Any thoughts ?

Pay close attention to the first sentence: "Although custom prosthetic bone replacements [or 'CPBRs'] produced through a new computer-aided design process will cost more than twice as much as ordinary replacements, custom replacements should still be cost-effective."

The author concludes that CPBRs should still be cost effective, even though CPBRs will cost more than twice as much as ordinary replacements. The argument is based on the fact that CPBRs cost more than twice as much as ordinary replacements. The author is trying to explain why CPBRs should still be cost-effective despite being twice as expensive.

Sure, CPBR costs might decrease, as described in choice (E), but that would not help us evaluate the author's argument. Instead, it would simply make the author's argument irrelevant. In this passage, we are not concerned with what would happen if CPBR costs decrease. Given that CPBRs cost more than twice as much as ordinary replacements, why are they still cost -effective? (E) is out of scope and should be eliminated.

I hope that helps!

Lets use variance test to get to the correct answer.
The conclusion is :- "Custom Prosthetic Bone Replacements" should still be cost-effective.

Premise :- Custom replacement will reduce the need for further hospital stays.

Lets use option C to variance test.

The degree to which the use of custom replacements is likely to reduce the need for repeat surgery when compared with the use of ordinary replacements is LOW.
Then the conclusion "Custom Prosthetic Bone Replacements" should still be cost-effective" CAN NOT follow. Because "Custom Prosthetic Bone Replacements" cost higher than the ordinary one.
So the conclusion gets HURT.

The degree to which the use of custom replacements is likely to reduce the need for repeat surgery when compared with the use of ordinary replacements is HIGH.
Then the conclusion "Custom Prosthetic Bone Replacements" should still be cost-effective" CAN follow.
So the conclusion gets HELPED.

Option C passes variance test and is the answer.

Please give me KUDO S if you liked my answer.

Matches my understanding. And I had the exact same doubt: that a custom replacement with all the stated benefits implies a long period of time before a repeat surgery is required than if one goes for an ordinary replacement.

VeritasKarishma

Hi Karishma,

Not only will surgery and recovery time be reduced, but custom replacements should last longer; thereby reducing the need for further hospital stays.
SC doubt - A semicolon to join two related independent clauses. Why author has used a semicolon before "thereby"?
Can you please help to understand the sentence structure?

Thanks!

We cannot derive SC questions from CR/RC sentences. In most cases, I would not say whether 'something is correct or incorrect' but only 'which is better'. Writers are offered a lot of flexibility to ensure clear meaning.

Here, we are given that "surgery and recovery time will be reduced" and "custom replacements should last longer" and the effect of these two will be that "need for long stays in hospitals will be reduced".
If we connect "thereby reducing the need for further hospital stays" with a comma, it could mean that this is the effect of only "custom replacements should last longer". The semi colon shows that it is the effect of both.

Trying to bucket every situation into neat, exhaustive lists will not be successful.

GMATNinja

Passage: ...but custom replacements should last longer; thereby reducing the need for further hospital stays

(C) The degree to which the use of custom replacements is likely to reduce the need for repeat surgery when compared with the use of ordinary replacements

I don't understand how this option is helpful in evaluating the argument, since the argument already states that custom replacements last longer.

The passage does tell us that custom replacements last longer, but doesn't tell us how much longer. What if they only last a few days longer than the old ones? Then they might not be truly cost-effective. If, on the other hand, they last 30 years longer, then they truly may be more cost-effective in the long run.

So, it would be helpful to know the degree to which the use of custom replacements is likely to reduce the need for repeat surgery when compared with the use of ordinary replacements.

I hope that helps!

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.