hard · LSAT Logical Reasoning
A study of two hospitals found that Hospital A, which uses an experimental surgical technique, has a lower post-operative infection rate than Hospital B, which uses the traditional technique. Hospital administrators conclude that the experimental technique itself reduces infection risk and should be adopted nationwide.
The reasoning in the administrators' argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it
- presumes, absent any support, that no hospital besides these two has ever recorded a lower infection rate
- confuses a technique's being newer with its being medically superior, since novelty alone guarantees nothing
- overlooks that some factor besides the technique, such as sanitation, may account for the gap seen here today
- takes a single comparative study of only two hospitals as sufficient grounds for a sweeping nationwide policy
- fails to specify what statistical margin separates the two rates before treating that gap as meaningful
Sign up free to see the explanation and track your rank →
More LSAT Logical Reasoning practice
- Which one of the following is an assumption required by the argument?
- Which one of the following can be properly inferred from these statements?
- The question type just described is best identified as which one of the following?
- The reasoning in the argument is flawed in that the argument
- The reasoning in the argument is flawed because the argument
- Which one of the following most accurately describes the relationship the statement establ
- Which one of the following can be validly inferred from the two conditionals above?
- Which one of the following must be true given the statement above?