Examkin

Question

Difficulty: MediumExplaining Surprising Outcomes

A county introduced a new telemedicine hotline designed to divert patients with minor ailments away from the county's emergency rooms. Records show that the hotline successfully resolved over 10,000 minor ailment cases last year that would otherwise have resulted in emergency room visits. Nevertheless, the total number of patients visiting the county's emergency rooms for minor ailments was 20 percent higher last year than the year before the hotline was introduced. Which one of the following, if true, most helps to resolve the apparent discrepancy described above?

  1. The aggressive marketing campaign for the telemedicine hotline convinced many residents who previously ignored minor ailments to seek medical attention, and a large number of these individuals bypassed the hotline and went directly to the emergency room.Answer
  2. B
    The percentage of total emergency room visits that were classified as minor ailments was significantly higher last year than in the previous year.
  3. C
    The county's overall population decreased by roughly 5 percent during the year the telemedicine hotline was first introduced.
  4. D
    Patients who successfully used the telemedicine hotline for minor ailments were highly unlikely to visit the emergency room for similar issues later in the year.
  5. E
    Emergency rooms in neighboring counties that did not introduce a telemedicine hotline also experienced an increase in patient visits for minor ailments last year.

Answer

The statement explaining that the hotline's marketing campaign caused a massive influx of new care-seekers, many of whom went straight to the emergency room.
The apparent discrepancy is that a new hotline successfully diverted 10,000 minor ailment cases from the emergency room, yet the total number of ER visits for minor ailments still increased by 20 percent. The correct answer resolves this by introducing a new factor: the hotline's marketing campaign caused a net increase in the total number of people seeking medical care for minor ailments. Because a large number of these newly motivated individuals went directly to the ER instead of using the hotline, the ER experienced a net increase in visits, even though the hotline successfully diverted 10,000 other cases.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the two apparently conflicting facts in the stimulus.
Fact 1: The hotline diverted 10,000 minor ailment cases from the ER. Fact 2: Overall ER visits for minor ailments increased by 20 percent.
Resolving a paradox requires a precise understanding of the two sides that seem to contradict each other.
2
Determine what the correct answer must achieve.
The correct answer must allow both facts to be simultaneously true. It must explain how the ER gained more patients than it lost to the hotline.
An effective resolution bridges the gap without denying either of the original premises.
3
Evaluate the options against the required criteria.
The correct option shows that the same initiative that diverted 10,000 patients also generated a new, larger wave of care-seekers who went directly to the ER.
This introduces a causal mechanism (marketing expanding the total pool of patients) that perfectly accounts for the concurrent success of the hotline and the increase in ER traffic.

Key Concept

Explaining Surprising Outcomes by introducing a confounding variable or unintended consequence that expands the overall scope of the situation.
Rate this question

Topics

Explaining Surprising Outcomes

More questions from this topic