Q16 - Dr. Kim: Electronic fetal monitors

[ymcho2013]

I was struggling between answer choices B and C, and I was wondering what made B wrong and C right.

Is B wrong because it only refers to the improving chances of a healthy baby ("information of a kind that is potentially useful in ensure that a healthy baby will be born") and leaves out the part about the monitors being more intrusive than the stethoscopes mentioned in the stimulus?

Thanks!

[ohthatpatrick]

With Principle-Support questions, the answer choices are almost always conditional statements.

We need the Sufficient condition (the left side) to match something we know from the premise, and we need the Necessary condition (the right side) to match what we're trying to prove in the conclusion.

What is our conclusion?
Electronic fetal monitoring should be discontinued.

Let's check out (B).

B) Monitoring used --> provide info that is potentially useful

This is set up in contrapositive form, since we're trying to prove that monitoring should NOT be used.

Let's write the contrapositive to make it look more like the argument:

~Provide potentially useful info --> ~Monitoring used

The right half looks good; that matches what we're trying to prove with the conclusion.

But does the left half match the premise? Did Dr. Kim tell us that electronic fetal monitors do NOT provide potentially useful info?

No. There's no wording like that in Dr. Kim's argument.

Electronic fetal monitors provide useful info; it's just the same info as what we get using stethoscopes.

Let's check out (C).

C) 2 methods provide same info ---> more intrusive shouldn't be used.

We don't need to rearrange this, because the right side is doing what we want the conclusion to do: telling us that we should not use a certain method.

Does the left half match the premise?

Yes. We know that electronic fetal monitors "do no more to improve the chances that a healthy baby will be born", but they are "more intrusive". (Additionally, Dr. Anders's argument acknowledges that "both Anders and Kim know that both methods provide the same information).

That's all the ammunition we need to apply the rule in choice (C). And by applying that rule, we get to conclude that electronic fetal monitors should not be used.

Hope this helps.

[inesa909]

Why is D wrong? Is D more of a sufficient assumption rather than support for Dr. Kim's argument?

[ohthatpatrick]

If (D) really were a sufficient assumption to Dr. Kim's argument, it would be the correct answer. The correct answer to Principle-Support questions usually are sufficient assumptions.

(D) is a sufficient assumption (basically) for Dr. Anders's argument. That's why it's wrong.

Let's try diagramming (A), (D), and (E) to see where they go wrong.

Again, we need an answer to give us a conditional statement that essentially works like this:

[something we know about EFM] -> EFM should be discontinued

EFM = electronic fetal monitoring

(A) Alternative method provides more info --> should discontinue the less informative method

For this answer to work, we would have to know that EFM is the less informative method and stethoscopes provide more info. But we were told, to the contrary, that the two methods essentially provide the SAME information.

(D) Medical device enabled learning something helpful to healthy babies --> that device is worth its cost.

This has nothing to do with Dr. Kim's argument. This is the principle that would justify Dr. Anders's argument.

His conclusion was that EFM is worth the cost, based on the premise that EFM enabled us to learn valuable info.

(E) Routinely used procedure --> should be reevaluated periodically.

We DO know that EFM is a routinely used procedure, but the 2nd half of (E) isn't a good match for the conclusion.

"should be reevaluated periodically" is not the same as "should be discontinued".

Hope this helps.

[WaltGrace1983]

In addition, and I know this might be splitting hairs, (~routinely used) would not necessarily mean (discontinued). To not be routinely used can just mean that.

[roflcoptersoisoi]

Is D a weakener?

[ohthatpatrick]

Yup. As we said earlier,

"(D) Medical device enabled learning something helpful to healthy babies --> that device is worth its cost.

This has nothing to do with Dr. Kim's argument. This is the principle that would justify Dr. Anders's argument."