- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 27
- Joined: Feb 27, 2024
- Tue Mar 05, 2024 5:41 pm
#105544
Perhaps a different way of looking at option (A) will help!
The author’s argument has stated that the redefinition of “top priority” has led to the reduction in turnaround time. Any answer that provides an alternative reason for the reduction in turnaround time would then undermine the author’s point, weakening the stimulus instead of strengthening it. Answer choice (A) does just that. The alternative reason in this case is that the number of heart attacks and strokes declined as opposed to the redefining of top-priority being the reason average turnaround time declined. Instead of offering alternative reasons, we want to find the answer that offers additional support for the author’s initial argument.
I hope this helps!
presleys wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 11:53 pm I understand why E is correct but I don't necessarily understand why A is incorrect. My line of thinking was that if the number of heart attacks and strokes went down, they would make up a smaller proportion of the average turnaround time which would in turn raise the overall average because a higher relative number of cases would be more time-consuming, does that make sense? Am I just reading too much into this answer choice?Hi presleys,
Perhaps a different way of looking at option (A) will help!
The author’s argument has stated that the redefinition of “top priority” has led to the reduction in turnaround time. Any answer that provides an alternative reason for the reduction in turnaround time would then undermine the author’s point, weakening the stimulus instead of strengthening it. Answer choice (A) does just that. The alternative reason in this case is that the number of heart attacks and strokes declined as opposed to the redefining of top-priority being the reason average turnaround time declined. Instead of offering alternative reasons, we want to find the answer that offers additional support for the author’s initial argument.
I hope this helps!
