Foundations of GMAT Verbal, Drill 8.2, Question 4

[njudd]

This question is looking for the reader to write the implied conclusion.

Some doctors have been performing extreme body modification procedures - such as creating a snakelike forking by surgically cutting the tongue down the middle - solely for cosmetic or lifestyle reasons. Harming a healthy body part is against the Hippocratic Oath, which doctors have sworn to uphold. Therefore:

The answer key states the answer is: Doctors should not perform extreme body modification procedures. In the explanation, the book argues the assumption that extreme body modification procedures is harming a healthy body part.

I agree with this assumption and to simplify my answer, will refer to the assumption as 'X'. I then applied the transitive property to this problem and came up with a different answer. Some doctors perform X. X is against the Hippocratic Oath. Therefore: some doctors are breaking the Hippocratic Oath.

Could you please explain why my answer is incorrect? Thank you.

[jlucero]

In the real world, your answer isn't incorrect. As you mentioned, you are using the transitive property. However, GMAT critical reasoning isn't usually about using logic rules to prove conclusions that must follow. It's about using facts to support opinions. The purpose of that chapter's exercise is to get you to think in terms of what the author is trying to persuade, not what the author is trying to prove must be true.