Q2 - A physician who is too thorough

[WaltGrace1983]

This is a strengthen question and, more specifically, the stem asks us to strengthen the conclusion. This is important because this may not require us to analyze the reasoning per se but rather just evaluate how an answer choice can strengthen the main point. Either way, this stimulus does present an actual argument and deconstructing it is good practice nonetheless.

It is difficult for physicians to judge exactly how thorough they should be
→
It is generally unwise for patients to have medical checkups when they do not feel ill

The bolded is of course the conclusion and we should pay most of our attention to this. However, as a brief side-note, there is an assumption going on here between the premise and the conclusion. The argument is assuming that just because it is difficult to judge how thorough to be, physicians fail to administer the right amount of thoroughness to their testing. A small assumption, sure, but something to think about regardless.

However, for the purposes of this task, there is also a really big assumption about this "feeling" that patients have. Who is to say that this "feeling" actually tells them anything? The conclusion is basically saying (Don't feel ill → Unwise to have medical checkups). However, what if the worst diseases one gets happen to be when you don't feel ill at all? This is the first thing that I was thinking about.

(A) This seems to weaken the conclusion very very slightly. If not all medical tests entail significant discomfort then maybe extra testing won't do all that much. Maybe extra testing will be perfectly fine and eliminate one major objection to receiving them. Either way, this definitely doesn't strengthen the argument.

(B) Oh this one looks good. It seems that this provides a reasoning why you shouldn't receive medical testing when you "feel" you don't need it - it is because it can make you ill! I'll keep it for now.

(C) I am unsure how this does anything to the argument and it definitely doesn't have any bearing on the conclusion. I'll eliminate this for relevance.

(D) This gives a reason why one should absolutely get extensive tests done - these complex tests make it more likely that a rare disease will be discovered! This would thus seem to weaken the conclusion.

(E) Like (C), I am really unsure about how this does anything to the conclusion.



(B) is the only one left and I think it makes the most sense (apparently, so does LSAC). (B) provides a reasoning why we can believe that we shouldn't just get checkups willy nilly. After all, they can make us ill with all their crazy testing!

[lsatzen]

I have two questions regarding this question. Q1) When the stem asks to strengthen / weaken the conclusion, is this a distinct task from strengthening / weakening the argument? In the former case, are we not at all concerned with the core of the argument? Q2) When I first read the stimulus, I tried to simplify it as much as possible and broke it down in the following way:

We know that 1) Drawbacks to being too thorough, 2) There are also drawbacks to not being thorough enough, 3) hard for physicians to determine how thorough to be, 4) if you fall on either side of the spectrum there are drawbacks.

Therefore, unwise for patients to have medical checkups when they do not feel ill. (In conditional logical ~Feel ill -> ~Wise to get check up)

When I read this, I was thinking of how the premise and conclusion connected and I think one major assumption is that the author is assuming that if you do NOT feel well, and you go in for a check-up, you are more likely to experience unnecessary suffering. With an undefined / non-existent illness, it is difficult for the doctor to establish a baseline or a jumping off point to begin his exploration of possible ailments. Which further obscures the, already difficult, task of determining how thorough one should be.

However, if you DO feel ill, then maybe, you can guide your doctor by telling him the symptoms you have been suffering from, which would help him narrow / hone-in on potential causes, thereby reducing the possibility of experiencing the drawbacks that were discussed earlier. I thought this was relevant because AC E seems to support to idea that, IF you are Ill, then it might be wise to get a check-up.

However, is this analysis incorrect / inapplicable because the statement, "IF you are Ill, then it might be wise to get a check-up" translates to Ill -> Wise, which is an illegal negation of ~Ill -> ~Wise?

[uhdang]

Thanks for sharing the reasoning, WaltGrace1983!

Your thought on assumptions was insightful! And I missed out on reasonings for A) and D) that they are 'weakening', so thank you for that, too!

I want to get more specific into "how" C) is not related to the argument, and talk about a different reasoning for E).

When regarding a matter of scope and relevance to the argument, I like to be specific as to in "what way" there is a scope difference.

For C), the passage is mainly about whether it is a good idea for a patient to get a checkup when not feeling well. And C) is talking about whether some patients accept physicians' assurance or not. Clearly, they are not on the same chain of thoughts. So, it has no impact on the argument.

For E), I thought this answer choice weakens the conclusion. Even if patients go to the hospitals and try to get a medical checkup when NOT feeling ill, if physicians can "eliminate the need to order certain tests" and prevent patients from going through the actual tests, then it might actually be worth while, or NOT unwise, to get a medical checkup even if not feeling ill. It at least gets rid of one of the possible routes where patients could get a negative aspect of medical checkup (unnecessary tests).
(Of course, this reasoning is based on a working assumption that Physicians' action in E) is DURING the medical checkup. But I think it's safe to assume this, because this would be completely out of context if E) is talking about physician's such conduct during anytime other than medical checkups.)