Q11 - A recent study revealed that

[maryadkins]

We're looking here for the answer choice that does NOT help explain the issue in the stimulus. The issue is: a greater percentage of people recover when they're treated in small, rural hospitals than in large, urban ones.

So to recap: 4 answer choices will help explain why this is true. These are NOT the answer. One answer choice will not help explain why this is true. This IS the answer.

(C) tells us that the large hospitals get doctors from elite schools but that this has no correlation to how quickly people recover. But we're not concerned with the rate of recovery. We're concerned with how many of them do, compared to the proportion who do at small hospitals. (C) leaves all of this in question.

(A) gives us a reason smaller hospitals are better.

(B) gives us a reason why larger hospitals are worse.

(D) is like (B).

(E) is like (D) and (B)--tells us why large hospitals are worse.

I hope this helps!


#officialexplanation

[weiyichen1986]

Hi, i am wondering is C wrong because it did not really explain the factor why small hospital is better?

I chose E because i think " well, okay, so they have less to explain the medications, but that doesn't really mean those meds will be administrated wrong."

What is wrong of my thinking here? Thanks for helping out.

[bhersk89]

Thank you guys for starting discussion of this question (a few years ago). Like weiyichen1986 I am having difficulty with this question. Every answer seems to help explain the discrepancy to me. And as far as I understand a recovery rate (as mentioned in answer C) does not have to do with the PACE of recovery, rather it directly relates the question as overall patients who eventually recover. I even searched the web to confirm this (http://www.ehow.com/about_5042599_recov ... ition.html). So I do not believe that maryadkins' answer helps explain to me why C is correct.

Doesn't answer C help explain by denying a possible counter claim of doctors in urban hospitals studying at more prestigious schools?

EDIT: to make my objection even clearer, the question stem specifically uses the language "recovery rates"

[maryadkins]

(C) is about rate, yes. And the stimulus is NOT about rate. The stimulus is about whether they recover at all. Maybe re-read the stimulus to clarify this for yourself?

[bhersk89]

(C) is about rate, yes. And the stimulus is NOT about rate. The stimulus is about whether they recover at all. Maybe re-read the stimulus to clarify this for yourself?

Thank you for your reply Mary!

I think you may have misunderstood my issue. The question stem specifically asks "Each of the following contributes to an explanation of the difference in recovery rates, except:"

I believe that the stimulus is all about the rate of recovery (which is determined by total number of patients who recover, NOT the pace at which they recover)

[maryadkins]

My bad! Yes, EXACTLY!

[julie.lekphs]

"Thank you guys for starting discussion of this question (a few years ago). Like weiyichen1986 I am having difficulty with this question. Every answer seems to help explain the discrepancy to me. And as far as I understand a recovery rate (as mentioned in answer C) does not have to do with the PACE of recovery, rather it directly relates the question as overall patients who eventually recover. I even searched the web to confirm this (http://www.ehow.com/about_5042599_recov ... ition.html). So I do not believe that maryadkins' answer helps explain to me why C is correct.

Doesn't answer C help explain by denying a possible counter claim of doctors in urban hospitals studying at more prestigious schools?

EDIT: to make my objection even clearer, the question stem specifically uses the language "recovery rates"

I chose D as my answer because I misunderstood what the answer choice was stating. I assumed the patients were already recovered and that the observation time following a patient's recovery was minimized. Here are my thoughts on why I now see why C is the correct answer.

Answer choice C states that there is NO correlation between the prestige of a doctor's school and patients' recovery rate. This does nothing to explain why people at smaller hospitals recover more than people at large hospitals, it simply tells us that the prestigious training of a doctor doesn't affect patients' recovery rate.

Even if someone claimed the prestige of a doctor's school is related to patients' recovery rates, and C denies this claim (no, there is no correlation), this doesn't explain WHY people recover more at smaller hospitals.

[VickX462]

I chose C and here's what I did for the elimination process:

Answer choices A, B, D, E all suggested possible factors that might contribute to the result:
(A) Better nutrition in large hospitals
(B) More stress in large hospitals
(D) Higher turnover rate of patients in large hospitals
(E) Less time to explain the instruction of administering medication in large hospitals

Answer C stands out. It fails to suggest a factor that contributes to the result. Instead, it states that no correlation is found between the prestige of doctor's school and the recovery rate. Therefore C is the right answer.

[obobob]

Just a quick question:

Let's say (C) is instead saying "no correlation has been found between the prestige of a doctor's school and patients' likelihood to recover from their illnesses" with rest of the parts of the answer choice staying the same.

Even if that's the case, this answer is still a bad answer because we are still unsure whether such fact (no correlation between how prestigious schools where docs trained and patients' likelihood in recovering) is causing the lower percentage of people treated at large urban hospitals who recovering from their illnesses than those at smaller, rural hospitals.

Am I understanding correctly?

Also, would something like this make a supporter of the argument in the stimulus? :

Large hospitals tend to draw doctors trained at the more prestigious schools, AND NEGATIVE correlation HAS BEEN found between the prestige of a doctor's school and patients' likelihood to recover from their illnesses.

[ohthatpatrick]

I don't really understand what you were attempting to change about (C):
"patients' recovery rate" vs. "patients' likelihood of recovering"?

Those are essentially the same to me.

Even if they were different, as you said, the answer still does nothing because "no correlation between the two has been found"

Your second example makes sense as an answer that WOULD contribute to an explanation.