Q2 - Modern physicians often employ laboratory tests,

[jardinsouslapluie5]

I cannot connect the assumption to the conclusion.
The (A) does not give me the idea of why Insuarance company regulation decrease the quality of medical care...
Help please.

[timmydoeslsat]

Think about the argument if it said this:

Physicians often employ a vertical jump test in addition to physical examinations in order to diagnose diseases in an accurate manner.

Therefore, insurance companies that deny coverage for vertical jump tests decrease the quality to care to patients.


For the argument to conclude that we will have a situation of decreased quality in care due to the vertical jump test not being covered, we are assuming that this test in conjunction with the physical examination are more accurate than the physical examination alone.

If you negate answer (A): Those two things together do not provide a more accurate diagnosis than the one thing by itself....

This ruins the argument as we are concluding that the quality will suffer. But how would it suffer if the diagnosis accuracy is not, in fact, more accurate?

[giladedelman]

Yes, good explanation! Let me go through the whole thing.

So our premise is that doctors often use lab tests in addition to physical examinations. From this, the argument concludes that insurers who deny coverage for lab tests are decreasing the quality of medical care.

But wait a minute. What do we really know about lab tests? All we know is that doctors "often employ" them. Does that mean they are useful? That they contribute to the quality of our medical care? No! It could be that doctors aren't improving our care at all by using these laboratory tests in addition to physical exams. So we need to ASSUME there's some benefit to them in order to conclude that by failing to cover them, insurers are worsening the quality of care.

That's exactly what (A) does. It tells us that there is some value, some benefit, to using lab tests in addition to physical exams.

As for the other answers:

(B) is out of scope because what physicians are in favor of or opposed to has nothing to do with the argument.

(C) is out because the argument is about what insurers cover, not about having vs. not having insurance.

(D) would weaken the argument by suggesting that lab tests may not be necessary (though it only says "some," so it doesn't weaken it very much).

(E) tells us about the price of lab tests, which has nothing to do with the usefulness, which is what we care about.

Does that clear this up for you?

[ywan1990]

I have a further question for choice A:
It says uncovered laboratory tests does actually contribute to improving the quality.

Whereas the conclusion of the stimulus says that Insurance company regulations that deny coverage decrease the quality.

If we take uncovered test = deny coverage, then it seems these two statements have run into contradiction. I think the correct answer should rather emphasise that only covered lab tests can increase the quality (hence if it is not covered, then the quality decreases)

Have I misread or misunderstood anything?

[WaltGrace1983]

I have a further question for choice A:
It says uncovered laboratory tests does actually contribute to improving the quality.

Whereas the conclusion of the stimulus says that Insurance company regulations that deny coverage decrease the quality.

If we take uncovered test = deny coverage, then it seems these two statements have run into contradiction. I think the correct answer should rather emphasise that only covered lab tests can increase the quality (hence if it is not covered, then the quality decreases)

Have I misread or misunderstood anything?

I'll try to tackle this question. So in the conclusion we are talking about insurance companies that do not cover these tests. The conclusion is thus saying the following:

"These insurance companies don't cover certain laboratory tests and this decreases quality of medical care."

The answer is getting at this by basically saying that "these lab tests - those that are not covered - provide a better diagnosis than just physical exams without the uncovered tests."

Thus, the answer choice is talking about exactly what the conclusion is talking about - the lab tests that aren't covered. Maybe the lab tests that ARE covered don't provide a benefit - who knows? The conclusion of the argument is talking about CERTAIN lab tests, remember that.

EDIT: I looked at this question again. I would also like to add something about the word "many." Many is oftentimes a word that we don't like in SA questions because it typically has connotations of now allowing for sufficiency. For example, if I say "my shirt is green, therefore all shirts are green" and the answer choice is something like, "my shirt's color is the same color as many shirts," this would be necessary but not sufficient. Thus, such an answer choice would fail to fulfill the task of the question. However, there is no need to get scared off by the word "many" here. This is because we are talking about a net decrease in quality. It could have been even just "one disease" that is given a more accurate diagnosis with physical examinations and uncovered laboratory tests, that would still be sufficiency because it shows that the net/overall quality is still reduced.

[economienda]

WaltGrace1983, you say:

--
The answer is getting at this by basically saying that "these lab tests - those that are not covered - provide a better diagnosis than just physical exams without the uncovered tests."

—

But it seems like you're saying: "lab tests - those that are not covered - " is the same as "uncovered tests"

I still think (A) should have said: "covered laboratory tests" or should have just dropped the "covered" completely.

[smsotolongo]

If you negate answer (A): Those two things together do not provide a more accurate diagnosis than the one thing by itself....

This ruins the argument as we are concluding that the quality will suffer. But how would it suffer if the diagnosis accuracy is not, in fact, more accurate?

I thought you weren't supposed to negate a sufficient assumption answer. Am I not understanding something?

[66610949]

I have the same question.

Let's apply Choice A:

If the uncovered lab tests were uncovered at first:
then
1.Uncovered lab tests provide addtional accuracy;
2.Insurance company denys some coverage for certain lab test .But there is no influence on uncovered lab tests, because they were uncovered at first, so there is no influence on the accuracy or on the medical care quality.
We can't reach the conclusion that care quality will decrease.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If the uncovered lab tests were covered at first:
then
1.Uncovered lab tests provide additional accuracy;
2.Insurance company denys some coverage for certain lab test. But there is still no influence on uncovered lab tests, because they still provide additional accuracy as the 1st senctce said, so there is no influence on the accurarcy or on the medical care quality.
We still can't reach the conclusion that care quality will decrease.

But if Choice A states that "covered lab tests provide addtional accurarcy", then it would justify the conclusion.
Am I thinking right?

[maryadkins]

Hmm, not sure I follow but I think you may be unnecessarily complicating things.

First of all, (A) DOES justify the conclusion; that is why it is the right answer. And it does say "uncovered," not covered. We don't need to hypothesize about covered lab tests, because they're uncovered in the stimulus and uncovered in (A). But what (A) does tell us is that they are useful. So the insurance company doesn't cover them, but they're useful. That means the fact that they aren't covered is has a negative impact on medical care, i.e. justifies the conclusion.

[obobob]

Hi, I thought the first sentence already establishes that modern doctors frequently employ lab tests + physical examination to diagnose diseases accurately (meaning running both of them yields accurate results). Since I am only seeing the given fact that the docs use both tests as the premise, I am wondering if it makes any difference to consider the fact that usage of both tests is intended to find accurate results?

[ohthatpatrick]

Sorry, I'm really not following your question.

In your recap of the first sentence, though, it sounded to me like you were getting more of a "sufficient" vibe out of the first sentence then it actually implies.

It doesn't say:
Lab test + physical exam --> accurate diagnosis

We're not guaranteed that when these are paired up, we get an accurate diagnosis.

It's just saying, "In order to diagnose accurately (as you said, with the intent of finding accurate results), docs often use lab tests in addition to physical exams."

The first sentence is talking about how both tools can be used with the intent of reaching an accurate diagnosis.

When you're saying, "Does it make any difference if we consider intent?", I'm thinking, "The first sentence explicitly says that the intent is in order to diagnose accurately."

Was your question basically that (A) sounds like something we already know?

If you were arguing against this conclusion, you'd be trying to argue that "when insurance companies deny coverage for certain lab tests, they are are NOT decreasing the quality of medical care".

I would make that counterargument by saying, "The insurance companies only deny lab tests if the test isn't needed to make a good diagnosis. The premise is that doctors OFTEN use lab tests to diagnose accurately. But maybe doctors also OFTEN use lab tests to confirm the diagnosis they'd already made or to cover their butts legally against any malpractice litigation down the road. Maybe insurance companies are just denying these LATTER cases of lab tests."

(A) rules out that objection by saying, "No, buddy .... these uncovered lab tests would have actually been in the FORMER case, in which doing the lab test really makes a difference to the accuracy of the diagnosis."

[gastarsn675]

Consider the ease and simplicity of the purchase process when selecting high-quality medications so that you can receive what you need quickly. Because https://www.esaprazer.com/pirfekast200 makes it possible to do so swiftly and with excellent results, that is why I select them. When using websites, it is also crucial to take note of their accessibility and simplicity of ordering.

[AlexH867]

very interesting