Though they soon will, patients should not have a legal right to see

Question

Though they soon will, patients should not have a legal right to see their medical records. As a doctor, I see two reasons for this. First, giving them access will be time-wasting because it will significantly reduce the amount of time that medical staff can spend on more important duties, by forcing them to retrieve and return files. Second, if my experience is anything to go by, no patients are going to ask for access to their records anyway.

Which one of the following, if true, establishes that the doctor's second reason does not cancel out the first?

(A) The new law will require that doctors, when seeing a patient in their office, must be ready to produce the patient's records immediately, not just ready to retrieve them

(B) The task of retrieving and returning files would fall to the lowest-paid member of a doctor's office staff

(C) Any patients who asked to see their medical records would also insist on having details they did not understand explained to them

(D) The new law does not rule out that doctors may charge patients for extra expenses incurred specifically in order to comply with the new law

(E) Some doctors have all allowing their patients access to their medical records, but those doctors' patients took no advantage of this policy

Bunuel · Accepted Answer

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

To begin, look at why the second reason cancels the first. The doctor is concerned first of all that retrieving records will waste time better used for other purposes. But then he seemingly undermines this reason by stating no patients will ask for their records, anyway. If no one asks, no time will be wasted.

The question asks under what condition does the second reason not undermine the first. If time must be spent regardless of a patient’s request, that time is certainly wasted. So if the new law requires doctors to have the records immediately at hand, the two reasons given do not cancel.  The answer is (A).

doomedcat · Answer

A IMO,

From A it is clear that even if patient do not ask for past record, doctors will have to spend time to retrieve record so that they are ready when asked

arvind910619 · Answer

Imo A

Since the Law made it mandatory for the patients to see their medical history, So documents have to be provided to them if asked.

Now A is saying just that. If A person is not asking the documents to be shown still the doctors have to dig in to retrieve the file of the concerned person he is supposed to see.
Imo A

auradediligodo · Answer

Though they soon will, patients should not have a legal right to see their medical records. As a doctor, I see two reasons for this. First, giving them access will be time-wasting because it will significantly reduce the amount of time that medical staff can spend on more important duties, by forcing them to retrieve and return files. Second, if my experience is anything to go by, no patients are going to ask for access to their records anyway.

Which one of the following, if true, establishes that the doctor's second reason does not cancel out the first?

Paradox question

Pre-thinking

It seems from the argument that we are dealing with a paradox. The paradox is that if patients won't ask for their records in the first place (2nd reason) how come that introducing this practice will result in a waste of time?(1st reason)

Any option suggesting that introducing the practice will somehow add some time is going to be our answer choice

POE:

(A)   The new law will require that doctors, when seeing a patient in their office, must be ready to produce the patient's records immediately, not just ready to retrieve them
 This option is in line with pre-thinking as it suggests that now doctor need to spend some more time to be ready to give to their clients their records right away.

(B) The task of retrieving and returning files would fall to the lowest-paid member of a doctor's office staff
 irrelevant

(C) Any patients who asked to see their medical records would also insist on having details they did not understand explained to them
 irrelevant

(D) The new law does not rule out that doctors may charge patients for extra expenses incurred specifically in order to comply with the new law
 irrelevant

(E) Some doctors have all allowing their patients access to their medical records, but those doctors' patients took no advantage of this policy
 irrelevant

CEdward · Answer

Maybe it's just me, but this is probably one of a handful of times when I have no idea what the question is asking.

What does it mean for one reason NOT TO CANCEL out another?

PyjamaScientist · Answer

I got A by POE.
Could not understand at first what the question was exactly asking me to do. But, from what I got hold of the stem, every option other than A seemed out of scope. Would love to see @EMPOWERgmat, or  GMATNinja , or  VeritasKarishma  provide their analysis of this question.

KarishmaB · Answer

The doctor gives two reasons why patients should not be allowed to see their records:
1. Retrieving and returning files will waste time.
2. People will anyway not ask to see the records.

Now, the second cancels off the first, right? Well, if people won't ask to see the files, how will it waste time retrieving and returning? So only one of two objections could be valid. If people ask for files, retrieving and returning will waste time. If people don't ask for them anyway, then there will be no retrieval and return.

But how can we say that the second doesn't cancel the first?

(A) The new law will require that doctors, when seeing a patient in their office, must be ready to produce the patient's records immediately, not just ready to retrieve them

The new law will need the doctors to keep patient records ready upon visit. They cannot stand ready for retrieval. They must have already retrieved and kept ready. So retrieval and return will need to be done by law even if the patients don't ask to see it. Hence both issues are valid. Retrieval and return will waste time. But patients will anyway not ask for records. Correct.

(B) The task of retrieving and returning files would fall to the lowest-paid member of a doctor's office staff

Irrelevant

(C) Any patients who asked to see their medical records would also insist on having details they did not understand explained to them

Irrelevant. Not a part of doctor's argument at all.

(D) The new law does not rule out that doctors may charge patients for extra expenses incurred specifically in order to comply with the new law

Extra expenses are irrelevant.

(E) Some doctors have all allowing their patients access to their medical records, but those doctors' patients took no advantage of this policy

This is just a rephrasing of issue 2.

Answer (A)

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.

Though they soon will, patients should not have a legal right to see

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

Though they soon will, patients should not have a legal right to see

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