PT158 S2 Q18 ExplanationRecords reveal that of physical therapy

Answer choices, explained

1. A

   Not Assumed20% picked this

   presumes, without providing justification, that effectiveness of different practitioners in bringing about major improvement cannot differ at all if their effectiveness in bringing

   The argument does not presume that effectiveness should be measured solely by improvement rates. In fact, improvement rate is a reasonable metric for evaluating treatment effectiveness. The argument's flaw is not the choice of metric but the failure to control for confounding variables within that metric. Even if we accept improvement rate as the right measure, the comparison is still flawed because it does not account for differences in the types of conditions treated by specialists versus generalists. This answer misidentifies the problem: the measurement itself is fine; the comparison methodology is what fails. Two practitioners can both be measured by improvement rate, and the comparison can still be meaningless if they are treating fundamentally different patient populations.

   20%
2. B

   Not an Objection9% picked this

   provides no information about the kinds of injuries that require short-term as opposed

   Knowing which kinds of injuries require short-term versus long-term treatment is unnecessary for the argument's conclusion. The argument groups patients by duration and compares outcomes within each group. Whether back injuries need six weeks and knee injuries need twelve is irrelevant to the question of whether practitioner type affects outcomes. The argument's flaw is about who treats what types of patients, not about which injuries require which treatment durations. This answer points to missing information that would be useful for a different analysis but does not identify the logical error in the argument as presented.

   9%
3. C

   Not an Objection5% picked this

   overlooks the possibility that patients are more strongly biased to report favorably on one of the two types of medical

   Patient reporting bias — whether patients are more favorable toward one type of practitioner — is a valid methodological concern in general, but it is not the specific flaw in this argument. The argument assumes the reported improvement rates are accurate and draws a flawed conclusion from them. Even if the data is perfectly unbiased, the comparison fails because it does not control for differences in the patient populations seen by each type of practitioner. Introducing a reporting bias concern shifts attention from the argument's actual logical error (comparing non-equivalent groups) to a hypothetical data quality issue that, even if resolved, would not fix the underlying problem.

   5%
4. D

   Not Assumed23% picked this

   fails to indicate whether the number of patients surveyed who saw a general practitioner was equal to the

   Whether the number of patients surveyed was equal between groups is not the argument's flaw. Statistical comparisons of percentages do not require equal sample sizes — the percentages are already normalized. The argument compares 31% to 31% and 50% to 50%; these percentages can be equally meaningful whether derived from 100 patients or 10,000. The flaw is that equal percentages from different patient populations are being treated as evidence of equal effectiveness. If specialists treat harder cases, equal improvement rates actually indicate superior performance by specialists. The sample size question is a statistical concern that is separate from and less fundamental than the confounding-variable problem that actually undermines the argument.

   23%
5. E

   Correct43% picked this

   overlooks the possibility that specialists and general practitioners each tend to excel at treating a

   Why this is right

   This answer identifies the argument's central flaw: it compares raw improvement rates without accounting for the possibility that specialists and generalists treat fundamentally different types of conditions. If specialists tend to handle complex, difficult cases (torn ligaments, post-surgical rehabilitation, chronic conditions) while generalists handle simpler problems (mild strains, basic mobility issues), then equal improvement rates actually indicate that specialists are more effective — they are achieving the same results with harder cases. Conversely, if generalists excel at treating certain conditions and specialists at others, a patient's choice of practitioner absolutely matters, even though the aggregate numbers look identical. The argument committed the ecological fallacy: drawing individual-level conclusions from group-level data that masks crucial subgroup differences. By overlooking that each practitioner type might have a comparative advantage with different conditions, the argument prematurely concluded that the choice does not matter.

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

   43%