Official Explanation

Argument Evaluation

This question asks us to identify the best criticism of this argument among the given answer choices.

Based on the premise that attorneys will turn away many potential clients who are not likely to win their cases, the argument concludes that a contingency-fee system does not increase the number of medical malpractice lawsuits brought against doctors.

In order to understand the argument more fully, we would need to consider whether the alternative to a contingency-fee system—a system wherein a client pays the attorney's fees regardless of outcome—makes it less likely that a potential client would bring a medical malpractice lawsuit against a doctor.

A. While it is true that the argument fails to specify the criteria that attorneys use to judge the merits of a malpractice case, this in no way suggests that such criteria do not exist.

B. Correct. This claim suggests that in the absence of a contingency-fee option, potential clients might hesitate to bring to court even lawsuits with merit. This suggests that there might actually be fewer meritorious malpractice lawsuits against doctors without the contingency-fee option. This would result in an overall reduction in the number of malpractice lawsuits against doctors, which substantially weakens the conclusion.

C. This implies that the contingency-fee option would reduce costs. Therefore, there would be more incentive to bring cases under the contingency-fee option. This strengthens the argument.

D. This is outside the scope of the argument. Note that the conclusion is about medical malpractice lawsuits, so this criticism is immaterial to the argument.

E. Note that medical malpractice insurance is a cost paid by doctors themselves. Therefore, the rising cost of medical malpractice insurance has no effect on the likelihood that a medical malpractice case will be brought to court.

The correct answer is B.