Linda: In the 1800s, it was found that one in every six women who gave

Question

Linda:  In the 1800s, it was found that one in every six women who gave birth in hospitals died of a fever they had contracted after delivering the child and that the mortality was not as high if they gave birth at home with the help of a mid wife. It was found that the doctors had a poorer sense of hygiene and that their dirty hands and instruments were leading to pathogens entering a woman's bloodstream. Thankfully, hygienic conditions today are much better and women are safer.

Fiona:  But doctors today are so overworked that a number of doctors, while aware of the need for better hygiene, barely find the time to wash their hands. The likelihood of infections caused by doctors is probably not any better.

Which of the following can be used by Fiona to further establish that Linda need not be correct in her reasoning?

A. A nationwide survey found that doctors, especially experienced ones, are more prone to the belief that they could not possibly be carrying pathogens.

B. It is reported that around 50,000 people die every year in our country from hospital acquired infections.

C. Compulsory hand cleansing is strictly adhered to by all doctors and nurses before every major surgical procedure.

D. During a study, doctors handling newborn babies self reported a hand cleansing rate of 90℅.

E. Nurses are not any better than doctors in adhering to strict cleansing schedules, especially when busy.

Source:   Wizaku GMAT  
Difficulty Level:   750

nightblade354 · Accepted Answer

Linda: In the 1800s, it was found that one in every six women who gave birth in hospitals died of a fever they had contracted after delivering the child and that the mortality was not as high if they gave birth at home with the help of a mid wife. It was found that the doctors had a poorer sense of hygiene and that their dirty hands and instruments were leading to pathogens entering a woman's bloodstream. Thankfully, hygienic conditions today are much better and women are safer.

Fiona: But doctors today are so overworked that a number of doctors, while aware of the need for better hygiene, barely find the time to wash their hands. The likelihood of infections caused by doctors is probably not any better.

Argument: Linda says that Doctors used to have poor hygiene and this lead to deaths. But she says that today conditions are better. 
-- Fiona then says that hygiene hasn't been improved, citing hand washing, which is cited as a consideration in Linda's argument.

Goal: Strengthen Fiona's statement that hygiene hasn't improved.

Which of the following can be used by Fiona to further establish that Linda need not be correct in her reasoning?

A. A nationwide survey found that doctors, especially experienced ones, are more prone to the belief that they could not possibly be carrying pathogens. --   So, if Doctors do not wash their hands, then this supports our initial findings that doctors do not wash their hands. Perfect premise to set up the other premise. Prior to knowing this, maybe barley once every patient versus a standard of once every minute.

B. It is reported that around 50,000 people die every year in our country from hospital acquired infections. --  Ok, how did they develop these infections? Not necessarily due to poor conditions. Wrong.

C. Compulsory hand cleansing is strictly adhered to by all doctors and nurses before every major surgical procedure. --  This weakens our argument. If they do this, then our argument falls apart. Wrong.

D. During a study, doctors handling newborn babies self reported a hand cleansing rate of 90℅. --  OK, 90% is good, but who cares? This could weaken or strengthen our argument. We have no base value for how many people get sick because of this. What if no girl gets sick? What if all of them? We cannot make this assumption to bridge the conclusion. We are told initially that 1 out of every 6 used to get sick, but how many doctors, on a percentage basis, were "clean" by today's standards? We have no idea. Thus this cannot help our argument.

E. Nurses are not any better than doctors in adhering to strict cleansing schedules, especially when busy. --  Apples and oranges. If I say that bears pollute and then I try and weaken it by saying that unicorns pollute more, this does not weaken my argument. Wrong.

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Official Explanation

Step 1:    Analyzing the Argument

Look for differences across the answer options to identify what is being tested in the sentence.

Linda’s argument has a cause-effect relationship and a comparison element as well.

# The causal argument is that the safety of women (or low mortality among women) is dependent on the hygiene awareness among the doctors.
# The comparison element is that women today are better off than the women in the 1800s.

If Fiona is to question Linda’s argument, she has to establish that one of these two (the causal and the comparison) relationships do not actually hold true. This is the reason that Fiona’s argument tries to establish that awareness is not enough. Mortality is also affected by the actual practices of the doctors.

To further weaken Linda’s argument, the correct answer Option must extend this discussion or question whether women today are actually better off than the women from the 1800s.

Step 2:    Eliminating Options

Option (B) can be eliminated  because we do not know whether these hospital-acquired infections were because of poor practices of the doctors or because of other factors.

Option (C) can be eliminated  because the option adds further support to Linda’s argument, when in fact the objective is to weaken her argument.

Option (D) can be eliminated  because the option again adds support to Linda’s argument. Some people wonder about the usage of the words “self-reported”, which might imply that the 90% figure may not be accurate. However, it cannot be assumed that the doctors are lying or that the actual rate is much lower than 90%.

Option (E)  seems to imply that the nurses do not have proper practices in place. At first glance, the option seems to work. However, the option assumes that doctors do not adhere to the schedules, implying that nurses are as bad. Nurses and doctors could both be GOOD at sticking to the cleansing schedules. Moreover, the focus of the discussion is on the practice of doctors and not of nurses.

Option (A) works   because it establishes another reason for carelessness among doctors when it comes to hygiene. If doctors believe they do not carry pathogens, they are more likely to be careless about cleansing schedules.

Option A is the correct answer.

Hope it Helps

rever08 · Answer

Linda’s argument has a cause-effect relationship and a comparison element as well.

The causal argument is that the safety of women (or low mortality among women) is dependent on the hygiene awareness among the doctors.
The comparison element is that women today are better off than the women in the 1800s.

If Fiona is to question Linda’s argument, she has to establish that one of these two (the causal and the comparison) relationships do not actually hold true. This is the reason that Fiona’s argument tries to establish that awareness is not enough. Mortality is also affected by the actual practices of the doctors.
To further weaken Linda’s argument, the correct answer Option must extend this discussion or question whether women today are actually better off than the women from the 1800s.

Option (B) can be eliminated because we do not know whether these hospital-acquired infections were because of poor practices of the doctors or because of other factors.

Option (C) can be eliminated because the option adds further support to Linda’s argument, when in fact the objective is to weaken her argument.

Option (D) can be eliminated because the option again adds support to Linda’s argument.

Option (E) seems to imply that the nurses do not have proper practices in place. At first glance, the option seems to work. However, the option assumes that doctors do not adhere to the schedules, implying that nurses are as bad. Nurses and doctors could both be GOOD at sticking to the cleansing schedules. Moreover, the focus of the discussion is on the practice of doctors and not of nurses.

Option (A) works because it establishes another reason for carelessness among doctors when it comes to hygiene. If doctors believe they do not carry pathogens, they are more likely to be careless about cleansing schedules.

Option A is the correct answer.

rish2708 · Answer

Would like to add my two cents.
I chose A as an answer.

Linda thinks through her reasoning that the cause of deaths was due to  pathogens  due to unhygeine.

Now Fiona says that today also the doctors don't wash their hands due to their busy schedule.

Question stem says in what scenario shall Fiona weaken Linda's reasoning.

A) it says that doctor's believe they do not carry pathogens.

Well... Might be but it does make us believe that irrespective of mortality today the pathogens might not be the reason. It slightly does weaken Linda's reasoning.

B) 50k deaths can be because of any reason and it does not specifically attack the reasoning for pathogens.

C) it's a counter premise so ruled out

D) it says doctor's cleaned their hand 90 out of 100 times... Well 10 times can lead to deaths and it does not weaken the cause that pathogens killed women and at a stretch seems like a strengthener for Linda's reasoning.

E) idea is about the cleansing of doctors as it is doctors who are responsible for infusing pathogens and hence incorrect.

Ans shall be A.

Regards,
Rishav

Posted from my mobile device

zs2 · Answer

C D E are not even under consideration.

confusion can be between A and B .

However B states 50k deaths, one we do not whether 50k is huge number or not, depends on population and admits in the hospital, also B does not talk about doctors hygiene as such , which was one of the main points raised by LINDA

Hence A clear winner, as further supports Fiona's view that Doctors are themselves responsible in spreading infection

SShareef · Answer

How is this a 750 level question? The answer seems absolutely obvious. B, C, and D either give more to the premise or strengthen the argument. E may need a second read through, but still can be eliminated. I'm a 640 scorer and find it hard to believe this is a 750 question.

Enough ranting. Good question otherwise. Kudos to you.

Enough ranting. Good question otherwise. Kudos to you.

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

Linda: In the 1800s, it was found that one in every six women who gave

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Linda: In the 1800s, it was found that one in every six women who gave

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards