LR question, PT 11, Section 4, #19 Forum

[Bobeo]

This is about clinical trials for surgical procedures and why they shouldn't be used. The argument says that these trials can't determine the effectiveness of the new procedures because surgery depends so much on the skills of the surgeon using it.

The question asked why the argument is flawed. I found no answer I really liked.

The answer ended up being A, one that I had eliminated. A says that the argument is flawed because the argument doesn't consider that the new procedures might be found to be intrinsically more harmful than previous procedures.

I don't understand why this is a flaw. Doesn't the argument state that the new procedure could be undermined by bad surgeons, in which case we would never know if the procedure was more or less effective?

Could someone maybe walk me through this question?

[Older Chest]

For whatever reason, this is the one question that I never properly understood. I still scored well, so I think you will be alright if you just move on.

[Paraflam]

PM'd you an explanation

[Bobeo]

I'm wondering if it has something to do with being "inherently" less safe, meaning regardless of surgical skill, but why would you develop and test those procedures in the first place?

Weird question.

[davesmystery]

I got this one wrong too, I chose D because since the argument is suspect, for all we know the skills of a surgeon are akin to the skills of the scientist making the drug or the pharmacist prescribing it and that the work of both parties may have similar results in the effect on a patient, and thus they are similar enough to potentially warrant the clinical trials. The only thing I can see that might make it wrong is that D says "scientific evidence" since perhaps any evidence (empirical or otherwise) would do.

I understand why A works, since if the surgical procedure is found to be more harmful than the best current method, then the trials are justified by their findings and prevention of potential harm to any patients, however I still don't see why D is wrong.

[crumpetsandtea]

I'm wondering if it has something to do with being "inherently" less safe, meaning regardless of surgical skill, but why would you develop and test those procedures in the first place?

Weird question.

The motivations for what occurs in the stimulus have no bearing on the answer. We're meant to look at questions as if they existed in a vacuum (ie a reality in which it makes perfect sense to develop a skill that might be inherently less safe). Bringing in outside logic/common sense in this manner is only going to confuse you.

As for OP, sorry I don't have that PT on me right now otherwise I would be more helpful.

[Paraflam]

Sent this to OP, but in case anyone else is interested:
--ImageRemoved--

[davesmystery]

I have that explanation as well, but I still don't see how there is "clearly a qualitative difference" between the two. In my mind, the argument is weak because all it cites as being different between surgery and drugs is the skill of the surgeon and the composition of the drug. The most correctly prescribed drug and the most appropriate surgical procedure having their underlying weaknesses ground in composition and skill respectively does not seem to do enough to warrant the conclusion. This, according to my reasoning, is because the process by which a drug is developed (and by extension its composition) could be a very similar process to that of developing a surgical procedure (and by extension it's final official process), we're never definitively told it isn't so how can we be sure it isn't.

Are we still to assume that the stimulus is correct in stating that the difference is enough to justify not extending the trials? Or is D wrong just because A could be argued as being a stronger flaw?

Does this make sense? Am I making some errors that I'm obviously just not seeing?