broall wrote:
Several studies have shown that hospitals are not all equally successful: patients are much more likely to die in some of them than in others. Since the hospitals in the studies had approximately equal per-patient funding, differences in the quality of care provided by hospital staff are probably responsible for the differences in mortality rates.
Which one of the following, if true, casts the most doubt on the conclusion drawn above?
(A) The staff in some of the hospitals studied had earned more advanced degrees, on average, than the staff in the other hospitals.
(B) Patient populations vary substantially in average severity of illness from hospital to hospital.
(C) The average number of years that staff members stay on at a given job varies considerably from one hospital to another.
(D) Approximately the same surgical procedures were performed in each of the hospitals covered in the studies.
(E) Mortality rates for hospital patients do not vary considerably from one region of the country to another.
-Patients are more likely to die in some hospitals than others
-Hospitals have about equal per-patient funding
-Mortality rate difference is because of differences in the quality of care
More people die at some people than others...it MUST BE because of the doctors' differing quality of care . Instead of thinking that way, maybe we should actually look more into the type of people that are going into these hospitals. Maybe some hospitals happen to be given more terminal cases than others. Maybe some hospitals that are in the inner-city typically get more cases of violence than those in rural communities. There are so many differences that we could attribute to the differing mortality rates. It seems that the patients would explain these differences; not the doctors.
(A) Yea okay this is decent. It shows that there are some hospitals that have personnel with more training or skills. However, does this necessarily equate to a difference in the quality of care? What if these advanced degrees were in philosophy and English? . The point is that having MORE advanced degrees does not equal MORE quality care. Even if it did, it would actually strengthen the argument rather than weaken it!
(B) gives us this alternate cause! What is it? It says that the average severity of illness varies from hospital to hospital. This means that some hospitals simply have more dire cases than other hospitals. A hospital that primarily deals with stuffy noses will not have more deaths than a hospital that primarily deals with ICU patients. (B) thus weakens the idea that it is the quality of care that leads to a difference in mortality rates by saying, "nope! It is actually the patients that lead to diverging mortality rates. We are all awesome! (okay I added that last part in)"
(C) This functions kind of like (A). It just gives us a random fact that doesn't seemingly have anything to do with debunking the quality of care conclusion. We don't know what affect the "average number of years that staff members stay on" has on the argument.
(D) This actually strengthens the argument just a bit. If we say that the same surgical procedures are being done then maybe the only differentiating factor IS actually the doctors/nurses performing the care. Thus maybe would COULD say that it is the doctors and nurses that provide that differing quality of care that leads to the differing mortality rates.
(E) This one is odd. It is kind of a premise de-booster because, while it shows that mortality rates DO vary, they don't "vary considerably." Now we don't really know how much they vary but none of this really matters. The point is that it says nothing about what actually affects the mortality rates. It just says that the mortality rates are different. Well okay then!
Answer B
_________________
When everything seems to be going against you, remember that the airplane takes off against the wind, not with it. - Henry Ford
The Moment You Think About Giving Up, Think Of The Reason Why You Held On So Long
close
15 Jun 2017, 03:13
16%
(01:48)
wrong 
