A careful review of hospital fatalities due to anesthesia during the

Question

A careful review of hospital fatalities due to anesthesia during the last 20 years indicates that the most significant safety improvements resulted from better training of anesthetists. Equipment that monitors a patient’s oxygen and carbon dioxide levels was not available in most operating rooms during the period under review. Therefore, the increased use of such monitoring equipment in operating rooms will not significantly cut fatalities due to anesthesia.

A flaw in the argument is that

(A) the evidence cited to show that one factor led to a certain result is not sufficient to show that a second factor will not also lead to that result

(B) the reasons given in support of the conclusion presuppose the truth of that conclusion

(C) the evidence cited to show that a certain factor was absent when a certain result occurred does not show that the absence of that factor caused that result

(D) the evidence cited in support of the conclusion is inconsistent with other information that is provided

(E) the reason indicated for the claim that one event caused a second more strongly supports the claim that both events were independent effects of a third event

thouhid · Accepted Answer

Okay, so this is a flaw question. The hardest part about this question is not the stimulus, but rather, the abstract wording of the answer choices. When you come to a question with answer choices that have abstract wording, its best to move from wrong to right. Lets jump straight to the answer choices.

(B) is incorrect because the argument does not contain circular reasoning, or, as the answer choice states, the reasons given in support of the conclusion do not presuppose the truth of that conclusion. If you're having trouble understanding what "presupposing what the argument sets out to prove", means, click here for more information.
(C) is incorrect, and highly tempting (stupid abstract wording), because what its basically trying to say is that the evidence cited to show that a certain factor (not having equipment to monitor the patients O2 and Co2 levels) was absent when a certain result occurred (less people dying) does not show that the absence of that factor (not having the equipment) caused that result (less people dying).

In other words, not having the equipment does not show that less people dying occurred because of the absence of that equipment is what caused less people to die.

(Did you see how dumb that sounded?)

(D) is incorrect because the evidence is not inconsitent with any other information in the stimulus. The evidence (better training and equipment) is actually consistent. It would be easy to spot if it weren't, sort of like a paradox question.
(E) is incorrect because we don't have a third event so we don't even know what the heck this answer choice is talking about.

Lastly, (A) is the winner and your correct answer choice because the argument basically tries to say that having the equipment will not lead to significant cut in the fatalities simply because they already had a significant cut in fatalities when they had better training. You're probably asking yourself, "well wait, what if the new equipment, coupled with the better training leads to MORE lives being saved". And this, folks, is exactly what you should have asked yourself during this question. Answer choice (A) perfectly hits this point, in a more abstract sort of way.

Bunuel · Answer

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

(A) Yes.  That better training of anesthetists improved safety in no way implies that new equipment would not have a similar result. The argument cannot validly make a conclusion about equipment that was not studied.

(B) No. The argument is not circular. In fact, the argument is flawed because it takes too big of a leap in logic.

(C) No. The passage does not argue that the absence of a certain factor (monitoring devices) caused a certain result (increase in safety). Rather, it states that the presence of better-trained anesthetists resulted in a better safety record. The argument then invalidly concludes that the presence of the monitoring devices
would not also improve the safety record.

(D) No. Only one piece of evidence is cited—a review of hospital fatalities due to anesthesia during the last 20 years. No evidence is cited to support the conclusion regarding the use of monitoring equipment.

(E) No. The argument states that one event (better training of anesthetists) resulted in another event (an improved safety record in hospital anesthesia use).
Nothing in the passage suggests that both of these results were independently caused by a third event.

gvij2017 · Answer

It was training of anesthetist, not the equipment to monitor CO2 or O2, which improved the safety in hospitals. Therefore, author concludes that monitoring equipment don't help improve safety in operating room and cut fatalities.

So the absence of one factor during review when result occurred doesn't mean that that one factor can't cause to get those results.

C goes along with it and correct.

Jks3000 · Answer

Hello experts  generis   abhi007   Bunuel  , can you please help; why Option C is incorrect ? 
It is very tempting choice and matches pre-thinking!

tejasvkalra · Answer

I'll give it a try
The conclusion of the argument states that having the monitors would not help in the reduction of the fatalities. Nowhere does it mention that the absence caused the result i.e the reduction in fatalities. Thus C is wrong

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.

A careful review of hospital fatalities due to anesthesia during the

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

A careful review of hospital fatalities due to anesthesia during the

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