#15 - Ordinary mountain sickness, a common condition

[MikeJones]

Hi BK,

The conclusion in the stimulus relies upon the implication that the similar symptoms between cerebral edema and ordinary mountain sickness make diagnosing cerebral edema difficult, and therefore make it more dangerous at high altitudes because it could be mistaken for ordinary mountain sickness.

(A) is a necessary assumption because if the treatments are the same for ordinary mountain sickness and cerebral edema, cerebral edema would not be especially dangerous at high altitude because even if it were confused with ordinary mountain sickness, one would still use the same treatment as if the cerebral edema had been diagnosed correctly.

Hope this clears things up!

I'm still a little unclear. Were the treatments the same, couldn't cerebral edema still be especially dangerous at high altitudes? Even if they have the same treatments, misdiagnosis could still occur, and one with cerebral edema might decide not to get treated as quickly as they need to be because they have the same symptoms as ordinary mountain sickness.

Edit: Just reading what I wrote here might have given me some insight. If treatments are the same, then cerebral edema would be treated correctly from its onset, as would ordinary mountain sickness, making neither more dangerous than the other. Is my understanding correct here?

[James Finch]

Hi Mike,

Exactly! The danger with cerebral edema is "quickly becomes life-threatening
if not correctly treated from its onset," so if the symptoms are the same, and the treatments are the same, then there is nothing in the stimulus to support the conclusion that it is "especially dangerous" (ie more dangerous than it is normally) at high altitude.

[Isaiah4110]

Hi,

Can you please explain why answer choice E is incorrect? If you negate answer choice E, you get "most people who suffer from ordinary mountain sickness recover with special treatment". If that's true, doesn't it mean that people who have cerebral edema but are mistakenly diagnosed as having ordinary mountain sickness would be in danger, because of receiving the wrong kind of treatment? I narrowed down to answer choice A and E, but I am having trouble understanding why E is incorrect. Thank you!

[James Finch]

Hi Isaiah,

I would negate answer choice (E) in a different way:

"Most people who suffer from ordinary mountain sickness do not recover without any special treatment"

Combined with the negation of the conclusion:

"Cerebral Edema is not especially dangerous at high altitudes"

Nothing in (E) connects to cerebral edema or the premise that deals with the necessity of quick treatment, because we don't know if cerebral edema and ordinary mountain sickness are treated with the same treatments. With the negated assumption, we still potentially have the problem of misdiagnosis and thus mistreatment, which only (A) eliminates.

Hope this clears things up!

[Isaiah4110]

Thank you for your explanation!

[lsatnoobie]

I’m still having a really difficult time getting rid of answer choice E. When I negate answer choice A, it’s clear as day why it’s correct — it directly harms the argument.

But when I negate E, I can’t see how it relates.. at all’s

Also, I’m not sure why you negated the conclusion. I thought we only negate the AC to see if it disproves the argument.

[Shannon Parker]

Using the assumption negation technique you can eliminate answer choice E. The negation of answer choice E is "most people who suffer from ordinary mountain sickness do not recover without any special treatment." This does not harm the conclusion, in fact, it supports it. It could be possible that E is true, but it does not have to be true. Look at it this way, what is the logical difference between whether mountain sickness requires no treatment, or significant treatment? The crux is that treatment has to be different for mountain sickness and edema, because if they are the same then it would not matter which one is diagnosed.

[Jerrymakehabit]

I have read through all the explains but still can not abandon E. Can someone please tell me what is wrong with my analysis below?

The negation of E is "Most people who suffer from ordinary mountain sickness do not recover without any special treatment" which is "Most people who suffer from ordinary mountain sickness need special treatment in order to recover". Since cerebral has similar causes and symptoms, if ordinary gets special treatment, then cerebral gets special treatment too which will not put it at high dangerous, thus hurts the conclusion. I understand how we need A that treatments are different but the sequence is decision to get treatment first and then talk about the difference in treatments. So we need E as first assumption and then A as next assumption.

[Adam Tyson]

Let's take a different approach to this question, Jerrymakehabit, one that this thread has thus far overlooked - the prephrase. What should we be looking for in the answers? The conclusion is that cerebral edema is especially dangerous at high altitudes. The evidence for that claim is 1) it is unlike ordinary mountain sickness in that it quickly becomes life-threatening, and 2) it resembles ordinary mountain sickness if you focus on the symptoms. What's missing? Why do those premises lead to that conclusion?

The missing assumption is that cerebral edema will be misdiagnosed and thus improperly treated. You won't get what you need, and your life will become threatened.

The conclusion has nothing to do with ordinary mountain sickness. It does not compare cerebral edema to ordinary mountain sickness and claim that cerebral edema is dangerous while mountain sickness is not. It's just about cerebral edema being especially dangerous at high altitudes, because (the author assumes) it will be misdiagnosed. Maybe mountain sickness requires special treatment in order for people to recover, maybe not - that's just not the issue here. The issue is whether patients with one problem will accidentally get treated for the other, and face life-threatening consequences as a result.

In light of that prephrase, answer A is incredibly obvious. The author MUST believe that the treatments differ. Otherwise, misdiagnosis would be irrelevant - they will get the right treatment, or they will not, no matter which condition they are diagnosed with! The confusion between the two would be complete non-issue!

Now, what does the negation of answer E do? So what if people with mountain sickness require special treatment? Does that have anything to do with the danger of misdiagnosing cerebral edema? Let's assume mountain sickness requires special treatment in the form of oxygen therapy, intravenous vitamin injections, a hot stone massage and leisurely ingestion of a lukewarm meatball calzone. What does that do to the claim that cerebral edema is especially dangerous at high altitudes? Nothing! It has no relationship to that claim at all! It's completely focused on the wrong illness, the one we were not looking at in the conclusion. I want an answer about confusion leading to the wrong treatment. Would it be wrong to administer that calzone to the edema patient? That's what I want to see in the answer.

With the right prephrase in mind, answer E is revealed to be irrelevant, and A stands out like a brightly colored flag flapping in the breeze atop Mt. Everest.

[Hazel03]

Why is C incorrect?