PrepTest 142, Section 2, Question 20
When people show signs of having a heart(65 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(6 more words not shown)
- AExperts agreed that(13 more words not shown)
- BThe practice of(20 more words not shown)
- CThe cardiologist correctly(19 more words not shown)
- DIn a considerable(19 more words not shown)
- EThe cardiologist in(14 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
The program found more of the actual heart attacks. That's a real advantage, but is it enough to hand over EKG interpretation altogether?
I'd want to know how quickly the program works. An answer that takes three weeks wouldn't be much use when someone needs help now. I'd also want to know whether the program is available where it's needed. Those are possible limitations to investigate, not problems the study has established.
What we’re looking for
For the weakener, keep the comparison focused: the recommendation favors programs over cardiologists for interpreting EKG data. Evidence needs to give us a reason to question that recommendation, not merely remind us that medicine is complicated.
Working the answers
- A
Making few obvious mistakes doesn't show that the cardiologist did better than the program. Both could perform well, with the program still detecting a higher proportion of true heart attacks. A praises the doctor's performance without identifying a comparative advantage that challenges the recommendation.
- B
Some medical work may involve subjective judgment, but does this particular task require a kind of judgment the program lacks? B doesn't establish that. The author isn't recommending replacing physicians in every aspect of medicine; the recommendation concerns interpreting EKGs. A broad limitation needs a connection to that task.
- CCorrect
Here is another part of the comparison: identifying cases in which no heart attack occurred. The cardiologist did significantly better on those cases. The program's advantage among actual heart attacks therefore doesn't tell the whole story.
This differs from the initial questions about speed and access. We now have evidence of an accuracy tradeoff: the program detects more real heart attacks, while the doctor more accurately recognizes their absence. That is a concrete reason to question leaving all interpretation to programs.
- D
This is tempting because it identifies a real limitation of EKG data. But it limits both programs and cardiologists. Needing additional information to make a diagnosis doesn't establish which interpreter should handle the EKG information we do have. The argument compares interpreters; D asks whether this one source of information is enough for a complete diagnosis.
- E
Unrepresentative in which direction? The passage describes this cardiologist as highly skilled and very experienced. Beating an unusually strong doctor would make the program's performance more impressive, not less. A comparison against an unusually weak doctor might be less informative, but E doesn't establish that situation. C supplies the clear, relevant advantage for the cardiologist.
More Weaken questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Weaken questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.