In Kantovia, physicians' income comes from insurance companies, which require physicians to document their decisions in treating patients and to...
GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions
In Kantovia, physicians' income comes from insurance companies, which require physicians to document their decisions in treating patients and to justify deviations from the companies' treatment guidelines. Ten years ago physicians were allowed more discretion. Most physicians believe that the companies' requirements now prevent them from spending enough time with patients. Yet the average amount of time a patient spends with a physician during an office visit has actually increased somewhat over the last ten years.
Which of the following, if true, most helps to resolve the apparent discrepancy between physicians' perceptions and the change in the actual time spent?
Passage Analysis:
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
|---|---|
| In Kantovia, physicians' income comes from insurance companies, which require physicians to document their decisions in treating patients and to justify deviations from the companies' treatment guidelines. |
|
| Ten years ago physicians were allowed more discretion. |
|
| Most physicians believe that the companies' requirements now prevent them from spending enough time with patients. |
|
| Yet the average amount of time a patient spends with a physician during an office visit has actually increased somewhat over the last ten years. |
|
Argument Flow:
The argument presents a puzzling situation by first describing the current restrictive system, contrasting it with the past, showing doctors' complaints about not having enough patient time, then revealing data that contradicts their perception.
Main Conclusion:
There's no explicit conclusion - this is a paradox that needs resolving. The discrepancy is between doctors thinking they spend less time with patients versus data showing they actually spend more time.
Logical Structure:
This isn't a traditional argument with premises supporting a conclusion. Instead, it's a 'resolve the paradox' setup where we have conflicting information: doctors' perceptions (they spend less time with patients) versus actual data (they spend more time with patients).
Prethinking:
Question type:
Paradox - We need to resolve the apparent contradiction between doctors' perceptions (they can't spend enough time with patients due to insurance requirements) and the actual data (patient visit times have increased over the last 10 years)
Precision of Claims
The key claims involve specific comparisons: doctors' subjective beliefs about time constraints versus objective measurement of visit duration over a 10-year period. We must respect both the factual increase in visit time AND the genuine nature of physicians' perceptions
Strategy
For paradox questions, we need to find scenarios that explain how both seemingly contradictory facts can be true simultaneously. We're looking for explanations that show why doctors feel more time-pressed even though visits are actually longer. The resolution should address the gap between perception and reality without questioning either fact
This choice talks about patients being in a hurry and less willing to wait, but this doesn't help resolve our paradox. We need to explain why doctors feel they don't have enough time despite visits actually being longer. Patient attitudes about waiting times don't address the core issue of why physicians perceive time constraints even when objective visit duration has increased.
This perfectly resolves the paradox! Even though visits are longer now, physicians have 'a wider range of options in diagnosis and treatment to consider with the patient before prescribing.' This means that while doctors have more time available, they also have more complex tasks to accomplish during that time. So they can genuinely feel more time-pressed (supporting their perception) even though visits are objectively longer (supporting the data). Both facts can be true simultaneously.
Information about group practices and sharing night/weekend responsibilities doesn't help explain the discrepancy between perceived time constraints during office visits and the actual increase in visit duration. This talks about work arrangements but doesn't address why individual office visits feel insufficient despite being longer.
Patient trust preferences between physicians and insurance companies is irrelevant to resolving why doctors feel time-pressed during visits that are actually longer than before. This doesn't explain the perception versus reality gap we're trying to understand.
This choice about financial incentives to see more patients might actually make the paradox worse rather than resolve it. If doctors want to see as many patients as possible for financial reasons, it's unclear why visit times would increase rather than decrease, and this doesn't explain how both the perception and the data can be correct.