Summary of medical research: Although it is common medical practice for patients to fast, i.e., refrain from eating or drinking...
GMAT Two Part Analysis : (TPA) Questions
Summary of medical research: Although it is common medical practice for patients to fast, i.e., refrain from eating or drinking for up to twelve hours, before a lipid panel blood test is taken, our research indicates that there are only minor differences between a fasting lipid panel and a non-fasting lipid panel. Furthermore, the differences are even less pronounced in the most significant categories, e.g., low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL) and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL). We, therefore, maintain that the inconvenience placed on patients when they are asked to fast is unjustified.
The argument above can be understood as a cost-benefit analysis. Select Benefit for the result that the passage identifies as a benefit of no longer requiring fasting before a lipid panel. Select Cost for the result that the passage identifies as a cost of no longer requiring fasting before a lipid panel. Make only two selections, one in each column.
Phase 1: Owning the Dataset
Argument Analysis Table
| Passage Statement | Analysis & Implications |
| "it is common medical practice for patients to fast...for up to twelve hours" |
|
| "our research indicates that there are only minor differences between a fasting lipid panel and a non-fasting lipid panel" |
|
| "differences are even less pronounced in the most significant categories, e.g., LDL and HDL" |
|
| "the inconvenience placed on patients when they are asked to fast is unjustified" |
|
Key Patterns Identified
- Established Facts: Fasting causes patient inconvenience; differences in results are minor
- Cost-Benefit Framework: The passage weighs accuracy (minor loss) against convenience (major gain)
- Recommendation: Stop requiring fasting because costs outweigh benefits
Phase 2: Question Analysis & Prethinking
Understanding Each Part
- Benefit Focus: What positive outcome results from NO LONGER requiring fasting?
- Cost Focus: What negative outcome results from NO LONGER requiring fasting?
- Relationship: These represent the trade-off in the cost-benefit analysis
Valid Inferences
- Benefit of not requiring fasting: Patients avoid the inconvenience of fasting for 12 hours
- Cost of not requiring fasting: Test results will have minor differences compared to fasting results
Phase 3: Answer Choice Evaluation
Choice Analysis
- "Minor differences in the test results"
- What it claims: Small variations will occur in test outcomes
- Fact Support: "only minor differences between a fasting lipid panel and a non-fasting lipid panel"
- Logical Validity: This is the COST of not fasting - we accept less precise results
- Part Suitability: Cost
- "Major differences in the test results"
- What it claims: Large variations would occur
- Fact Support: CONTRADICTS the passage which says "minor differences"
- Logical Validity: Invalid - directly contradicts stated facts
- Part Suitability: Neither
- "Short-term financial loss"
- What it claims: Money would be lost initially
- Fact Support: No mention of financial considerations
- Logical Validity: Speculation beyond passage scope
- Part Suitability: Neither
- "Long-term financial gain"
- What it claims: Money would be saved eventually
- Fact Support: No mention of financial considerations
- Logical Validity: Speculation beyond passage scope
- Part Suitability: Neither
- "Avoids inconveniencing the medical staff in a certain way"
- What it claims: Staff benefit from the change
- Fact Support: No mention of staff convenience
- Logical Validity: Not supported by passage
- Part Suitability: Neither
- "Avoids inconveniencing the patient in a certain way"
- What it claims: Patients no longer face fasting inconvenience
- Fact Support: "the inconvenience placed on patients when they are asked to fast"
- Logical Validity: Direct inference - eliminating fasting removes this inconvenience
- Part Suitability: Benefit
Answer Selection
- Benefit: "Avoids inconveniencing the patient in a certain way" - This is the positive outcome of not requiring fasting
- Cost: "Minor differences in the test results" - This is what we accept as the trade-off
Verification
The passage presents a classic cost-benefit analysis: we accept minor differences in test accuracy (cost) to eliminate patient inconvenience (benefit). Both answers are directly supported by explicit statements in the passage.