The consequences of surgical errors

Answer choices

1. A

   Didn't Fail to Consider8% picked this

   there are general surgeons who are

   We're looking for the objection of "there are non - general surgeons who are competent". This is giving us the inverted version of that. Would it weaken the argument if there are general surgeons who are incompetent? Sure. But did the author fail to consider that? No, she considered it. She explicitly ruled out that possibility when she told us that "general surgeons have training and expertise that make them extremely competent."

   8%
2. B

   Correct74% picked this

   general surgeons are not the only doctors competent to

   Why this is right

   This answer is pretty lame in the sense that the logical idea that matters in this argument is "highly competent", not just "competent". But it's the best answer we have that comes close to our objection: why are you assuming that general surgeons are the only people who are highly competent to perform surgery. Couldn't there be others who are also highly competent?

   Skill tested: Weaken · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   74%
3. C

   Not an Objection14% picked this

   the competence of the doctor performing surgery does not guarantee a

   Our author was never saying or assuming that having a competent surgeon would guarantee a successful outcome, so we can't hurt her logic by saying that sometimes competent surgeons are unsuccessful. The argument was simply about whether you're talking about tolerable risk (having a highly competent person perform the surgery) vs. intolerable / undesirable risk (having someone who isn't highly competent perform the surgery). All surgeries carry some risk of bad outcomes.

   14%
4. D

   Not an Objection2% picked this

   risk is not the only factor in deciding whether to

   The conclusion isn't about whether or not you should have surgery, so adding up all the pros and cons of factors why you should or shouldn't are irrelevant. This conclusion is only about the idea of, "If you're going to have surgery, it would be a highly undesirable risk if you went with someone other than a general surgeon." The author isn't saying, "If you can get a general surgeon, then you should have surgery."

   2%
5. E

   Not an Objection2% picked this

   factors in addition to competence are relevant when choosing

   The conclusion isn't saying you should choose a general surgeon. It only says that "were you to choose someone besides a general surgeon, it would involve highly undesirable risk". This answer is saying, "That risk might be outweighed by other stuff" and the author is free to agree. It doesn't hurt her argument to agree. To hurt her argument, we need to be able to argue that, "were we to choose someone besides a general surgeon, it would not necessarily involve highly undesirable risk! (after all, other people besides general surgeons are highly competent)

   2%