Loading...
Of patients over 65 years old who survived coronary bypass surgery, a procedure widely prescribed for people with heart diseases, only \(75\%\) benefited from the surgery. Thus it appears that for \(\frac{1}{4}\) such patients, the doctors who advised them to undergo this surgery, with its attendant risks and expense, were more interested in an opportunity to practice their skills and in their fee than in helping the patient.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument?
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
|---|---|
| Of patients over 65 years old who survived coronary bypass surgery, a procedure widely prescribed for people with heart diseases, only 75 percent benefited from the surgery. |
|
| Thus it appears that for one in four such patients, the doctors who advised them to undergo this surgery, with its attendant risks and expense, were more interested in an opportunity to practice their skills and in their fee than in helping the patient. |
|
The argument starts with a medical statistic showing that 25% of elderly bypass patients don't benefit from surgery, then jumps to a conclusion about why doctors recommended surgery to those patients.
Doctors recommended bypass surgery to 25% of elderly patients for selfish reasons (to practice skills and earn fees) rather than to help the patients.
The argument assumes that if a patient doesn't benefit from surgery, the doctor must have had bad motives for recommending it. This is a weak logical link because there could be many other reasons why surgery doesn't help - the author doesn't consider alternative explanations for the 25% failure rate.
Weaken - We need to find information that reduces belief in the conclusion that doctors recommended surgery to 25% of patients for selfish reasons rather than patient benefit
The argument makes a specific quantitative claim (25% didn't benefit) and a qualitative claim about doctor motives (selfishness vs patient care). The key assumption is that lack of benefit equals wrong recommendation.
To weaken this argument, we need to show that there could be legitimate medical reasons why doctors recommended surgery even to the 25% who didn't benefit. We should look for scenarios that explain why a doctor might reasonably recommend surgery even when the outcome isn't beneficial, without questioning the 75% benefit rate fact.
'Many of the patients who receive coronary bypass surgery are less than 55 years old.' This is irrelevant to our argument, which specifically focuses on patients over 65 years old. The age of other patient groups doesn't help explain why doctors might have recommended surgery to the 25% of elderly patients who didn't benefit. This doesn't address the core issue of doctor motives.
'Possible benefits of coronary bypass surgery include both relief from troubling symptoms and prolongation of life.' This doesn't weaken the argument because we still don't know why doctors recommended surgery to the specific 25% who didn't benefit from it. Even if there are multiple types of benefits, the argument would still question why doctors recommended surgery to patients who received none of these benefits.
'Most of the patients in the survey decided to undergo coronary bypass surgery because they were advised that the surgery would reduce their risk of future heart attacks.' This tells us what doctors told patients, but it doesn't explain why some patients didn't benefit while others did. The argument could still claim that doctors inappropriately recommended surgery to the 25% who didn't benefit, regardless of what explanation doctors gave.
'The patients over 65 years old who did not benefit from the coronary bypass surgery were as fully informed as those who did benefit from the surgery as to the risks of the surgery prior to undergoing it.' This focuses on patient informed consent, but doesn't address whether doctors had legitimate medical reasons for recommending surgery to those who didn't benefit. The argument about doctor motives remains untouched.
'The patients who underwent coronary bypass surgery but who did not benefit from it were medically indistinguishable, prior to their surgery, from the patients who did benefit.' This seriously undermines the argument by showing that doctors couldn't have predicted which patients would fall into the 25% who didn't benefit. If these patients were medically identical to successful cases beforehand, then doctors made recommendations based on legitimate medical criteria, not selfish motives. This removes the foundation for questioning doctors' intentions and provides an alternative explanation - medical unpredictability rather than greed.