#18 - Records reveal that of physical therapy patients who

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Flaw in the Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (E).

Answer choice (A):

Answer choice (B):

Answer choice (C):

Answer choice (D):

Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice.

This explanation is still in progress. Please post any questions below!

[tarac1999@gmail.com]

Hello! Looking for guidance on this question-

I chose answer choice D.

I ruled out A because the stimulus only references major improvement, so A didn't seem relevant.
Ruled out B because that information didn't seem like it would do anything for me.
Ruled out C because their report wouldn't impact major improvement.
Ruled out E because I just thought that D was a better answer.

What if there were 8 general practitioners and 4 specialists seeing the patients who were in for <6 weeks, and 2 general practitioners and 10 specialists seeing the patients for >6 weeks -it seems like the choice between who to see would affect one's chances of major improvement. I'm sure that's a question I'm not supposed to ask, since answer choice D is incorrect, but why is it unfair to ask this question? When am I allowed to question the demographics?

Or maybe after typing this out, I see the issue- is it because of the "regardless" part, so that 31% remains constant.

I think I see the issue with D now, but could you help me with why E is the best answer choice?

[merkvslsat]

D is a trap answer, this is not a surveying issue.

They say that it basically doesn't matter whether you see a general practitioner or a specialist because regardless of the type of physical therapist the results are about the same, on balance. But this does not account for the possibility that a specialist has like a 90% success rate treating a specific type of injury and a 2% success rate at another - that was my logic anyway. The principle of specialization was held in high regard by the Greeks...

[em_chu]

Or maybe after typing this out, I see the issue- is it because of the "regardless" part, so that 31% remains constant.

I think I see the issue with D now, but could you help me with why E is the best answer choice?

This helped me see why D is wrong! I took this test as a timed practice, chose E then switched to D at the last second because in my head I was thinking 'well what if there was only 1 GP and the rest of the sample of 100 were specialists, the number of patients has to matter here right?' But if it's 'regardless' then that wouldn't work as a counter anyways AND it wouldn't even make sense cause how could one patient have a 31% success rate lol.

I originally thought E implied that these % could be higher making this answer choice out of scope (?); hence why I switched my answer originally.

IMO though E is right because what if only 31%/50% of the patients showed major improvement by both because each were already selected to treat those they could help best? Then the author's argument that choice between specialist or GP is wrong because choice between the two was needed to get to these % in the first place.

[Adam Tyson]

You've all done a good job here of finding the problem with answer D! That answer is about numbers, but the argument is about percentages. It doesn't matter how many patients were in each group, because the issue is only what the rate of success is, which is a percentage idea. The percentages indicate that the success rate was the same in both groups who went for less than 6 weeks, and it was also the same for both groups who went for longer. Based on similar success rates, the author concludes that it doesn't matter who you choose for treatment.

The problem is that the argument fails to consider other possible differences in the groups, factors that might make the choice of doctor matter. An analogy might help illustrate this! What if instead of two different types of doctors, we compared two different kinds of cars? Imagine that 60% of people who bought a minivan were happy with their choice, and 60% of people who bought a sports car were happy with their choice. Could we then conclude that it wouldn't have mattered to those people whether they picked a minivan or a sports car? Well, the Dad with 4 kids to carry to t-ball and dance classes probably wouldn't have been as happy with the sports car! Different needs might matter, and the cars providing different benefits might matter. We have to look at what factors went into those choices, just as we do with the patients choosing their doctors.

Nice job, folks!

[mkarimi73]

Could I have an explanation as to why (A) and (B) are wrong, especially (A)?

[gwlsathelp]

This was a tricky question. The most important aspect of this question was catching what "regardless" meant and what the conclusion is pushing.

The conclusion says that the chance that a patient shows major improvement are not dependent on their choice of doctor (either a specialist or gen. prac.). The premises attempt to distract you with the relationship of time spent in therapy and the change in percent improvement. Now, think of how the use of "regardless" like this, 31% of patients who either saw a gen. prac. or specialist for less than 6 weeks showed major improvement, while 69%nice. of patients who either saw a gen. prac. or specialist for less than 6 weeks did not show major improvements, which could be no improvement whatsoever or a little improvement.

Answer Choices
A. This is a very convoluted way of saying "the argument assumes that if the practitioner's ability to bring any improvement is the same, then their ability to bring major improvements is the same too". This is wrong because we don't know the practitioner's effectiveness of bringing about any improvements. We only know based on the stimulus that effectiveness of therapy is shown through "major improvements" and not major improvements.

B. The kind of injury that require less than 6 weeks and more than 6 weeks of therapy is not important to the conclusion and this answer choice trying to get you by saying "required". The patients "received" a certain period of therapy.

E. This is correct because we don't know the breakdown of the percentage of people who saw major improvement and who they saw that improvement with and this answer choice draws that into question.

[Luke Haqq]

To address (A), that answer choice states that the flaw is that the stimulus "presumes, without providing justification, that effectiveness of different practitioners in bringing about major improvement cannot differ at all if their effectiveness in bringing about any improvement does not differ." A crucial word that puts this answer choice out of contention is its mention of "any" improvement. The author of the stimulus isn't making claims about "any" improvements but only more specific claims about "major" improvements.

Regarding answer choice (B), that answer states that the author "provides no information about the kinds of injuries that require short-term as opposed to long-term treatment." This is on the right track in mentioning "kinds of injuries," but it's not clearly a flaw to fail to list these out, as (B) suggests. Even if the author did provide such information, the conclusion wouldn't be warranted that "the choice between seeing a specialist or a general practitioner for necessary physical therapy will not affect one's chances of major improvement."

Answer choice (E) explains why this conclusion isn't warranted. This answer choice states that the author "overlooks the possibility that specialists and general practitioners each tend to excel at treating a different type of injury." Here again one encounters types/kinds of injuries. The author moves from general statistics to a recommendation about a particular case--i.e. "one's chances." However, we can't confirm that this is a warranted conclusion about one's particular situation without knowing more about one's injury. Some injuries, for example, might only see major improvement with help from a specialist, but the author's conclusion doesn't allow for this possibility.