12. “Though they soon will, patients should not have a legal right to see their medical records. As a doctor, I see two reasons for this. First, giving them access will be time-wasting because it will significantly reduce the amount of time that medical staff can spend on more important duties, by forcing them to retrieve and return files. Second, if my experience is anything to go by, no patients are going to ask for access to their records anyway.” Which one of the following, if true, establishes that the doctor’s second reason does not cancel out the first? (A) The new law will require that doctors, when seeing a patient in their office, must be ready to produce the patient’s records immediately, not just ready to retrieve them. (B) The task of retrieving and returning files would fall to the lowest-paid member of a doctor’s office staff. (C) Any patients who asked to see their medical records would also insist on having details they did not understand explained to them. (D) The new law does not rule out that doctors may charge patients for extra expenses incurred specifically in order to comply with the new law. (E) Some doctors have all allowing their patients access to their medical records, but those doctors’ patients took no advantage of this policy.
This is truly a great abstract question and its prolly gonna be one of the hardest LR questions you'll ever see on the test. First, you'd have to identify the foundamental conflict between reason one and reason two. Reason one states that it is going to be a waste of time for doctors to retrieve the documents while reason two says there won't be anyone ask for the records. Well, if no one is going to ask for the records, there will not be any waste of time right? Therefore, the two reasons conflict each other. Lets look at choice A now, if the doctors need to get the medical records ready all the time, meaning they can't just go retrieve it upon request, then the doctors will have to "waste time". The conflict is then solved and both reasons will be valid.
|