Q17 - Dr. Kim: Electronic fetal monitors

[kopoku.08]

I have no idea what the answer is. I chose (b) because thats a typical answer in a flaw question. My next choice would be (e)

To me the point is that cost of electric monitoring is unjustified and should be discontinued, and Anders addresses the point by saying electric monitoring was worth because doctors know what to listen for, which addresses the point of of why Anders believes the cost to be justified.

Help.

[bbirdwell]

Your analysis is close, but the devil's in the details.

Kim's conclusion:
cost of monitors unjustified, and their use should be discontinued

premise: monitors are more intrusive than stethoscopes and do no more to improve chances of healthy birth

Anders conclusion:
monitors HAVE BEEN worth the cost

premise; doctors now know what to listen for when using stethoscope


Anders response shows what the value of monitors HAS BEEN: we've learned how to use our stethoscopes. This does not mean we should continue using them. In fact, it implies that their usefulness has come and gone, and that, thanks to what we learned from monitors, we can now safely use the cheaper and less intrusive stethoscopes. Therefore, this is not an adequate way to disagree with Kim, for Kim is arguing that NOW they are not worth the cost.

In simpler language, Kim says, "NOW they're not worth it, so we should get rid of them," and Anders says "BACK THEN, they helped us learn, so we should keep them." This is a bad response, best summarized by (A). He simply misses the point.

(B) might be a common choice on flaw questions, but it is not a common CORRECT choice. It describes a circular argument, which is more obvious (Money is the root of all evil because all evil can be traced back to money), and appears infrequently on the LSAT

(C) is out of scope

(D) is way out of scope

(E) is also out of scope -- neither argument has anything to do with the "best" procedure.