The average length of stay for patients at Edgewater Hospital is four

I myself for the trap. But upon reviewing, I now understand why C makes more sense.

So essentially the argument states that the recovery rate post treatment for similar treatment at the two hospital is the same. Let's say X days. But the avg times the patients were admitted to the two hospital are 4 & 6 days respectively. Hence it concludes that Uni hospital can reduce the average time without any quality problems since Edge hosp is doing so.

What if the average time at Uni hospital is higher because of the treatment of some other illness. for similar illness Uni hosp could well be taking similar or even lesser number of days patients are admitted?

That is what essentially C is doing. Highlighting a fault.

The average length of stay for patients at Edgewater Hospital is four days, compared to six days at University Hospital. Since studies show that recovery rates at the two hospitals are similar for patients with similar illnesses, University Hospital could decrease its average length of stay without affecting quality of care.

P: The average length of stay for patients at Edgewater Hospital is four days, compared to six days at University Hospital
P: Since studies show that recovery rates at the two hospitals are similar for patients with similar illnesses
C: University Hospital could decrease its average length of stay without affecting quality of care.

Ok, so because treatment length is equal and outcomes are the same, we therefore can reduce our time for treating patients. Hmm, what is assumed here? For one, we are assuming treatment type. We are also assuming equipment availability, doctor capabilities, ect. So let's see if we can find one of these below to help show that we assumed something about our two hospitals.

The reasoning in the argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument:

(A) equates the quality of care at a hospital with patients’ average length of stay -- We never talk about quality of care compared to time. In fact, we are told that we are decreasing time without decreasing quality, so this is absolutely wrong. Out.

(B) treats a condition that will ensure the preservation of quality of care as a condition that is required to preserve quality of care -- This says that we are treating a sufficient condition for a neccessary condition (Very LSAT-like answer choice). Essentially, this is saying If --> then, and we screwed up by saying If --> then, which is a logical fallacy, but not what has occurred here. The GMAT doesn't test this, so don't worry about it.

(C) fails to take into account the possibility that patients at Edgewater Hospital tend to be treated for different illnesses than patients at University Hospital -- Let's see, did the argument assume that the type of illnesses are the same? Yup. This explains how we have similar treatment outcomes, but different times. And if this were true, it would explain how we COULD NOT reduce time without sacrificing quality.

(D) presumes, without providing justification, that the length of time patients stay in the hospital is never relevant to the recovery rates of these patients -- Nope. Way too extreme of an answer. Maybe some patients need extra long stays, where as others do not. If we have one, we are breaking this answer choice. Because of how extreme the answer is, especially given that we dealing with AVERAGES, there is no way to know whether this destroys our argument. Out.

(E) fails to take into account the possibility that patients at University Hospital generally prefer longer hospital stays -- This one made me laugh. Who cares what hospitals want? The goal is to show a weakness in the argument, so we have to assume that hospitals keep patients purposefully and thus cause delays. Out.

EH treats 10 types of diseases and UH treats 15 types. The 10 types takes on an average 4 days for both hospitals. However, 5 types for UH takes more than 6 days such that average for UH is 6 days. Here itself one can understand why reducing to 4 days average at UH might be difficult. Thus, conclusion stands vulnerable.

Other assumption not covered here can be doctors' efficiency or both hospitals have treatments for similar types illnesses and many more.

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.