Dr. Rodriguez clarifies why the patient's clinical presentation strongly suggests acute appendicitis instead of gastroenteritis. First, the pain's pos...
GMAT Expression of Ideas : (Expression) Questions
Dr. Rodriguez clarifies why the patient's clinical presentation strongly suggests acute appendicitis instead of gastroenteritis. First, the pain's position in the lower right abdominal quadrant indicates appendiceal inflammation. _______ the increased white blood cell levels verify a substantial inflammatory process.
Which choice completes the text with the most logical transition?
Furthermore,
Nevertheless,
Conversely,
Specifically,
Step 1: Decode and Map the Passage
Create Passage Analysis Table
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
|---|---|
| 'Dr. Rodriguez clarifies why the patient's clinical presentation strongly suggests acute appendicitis instead of gastroenteritis.' |
|
| 'First, the pain's position in the lower right abdominal quadrant indicates appendiceal inflammation.' |
|
| [MISSING TRANSITION] |
|
| 'the increased white blood cell levels verify a substantial inflammatory process.' |
|
Provide Passage Architecture & Core Elements
Visual Structure Map:
[DR'S EXPLANATION/CLAIM]
Dr. Rodriguez explains: symptoms suggest appendicitis
↓
[SUPPORTING EVIDENCE]
├── Evidence 1: Pain location (lower right quadrant)
[MISSING CONNECTOR]
└── Evidence 2: Elevated white blood cells
Main Point: Dr. Rodriguez uses two pieces of clinical evidence to support his diagnosis that the patient has acute appendicitis rather than gastroenteritis.
Argument Flow: The passage presents Dr. Rodriguez's diagnostic reasoning. He states his conclusion first, then provides two separate pieces of evidence that both support the same diagnosis - the location of pain and laboratory findings showing inflammation.
Step 2: Interpret the Question Precisely
This is a fill-in-the-blank question asking us to choose the best logical connector. The answer must create the right relationship between what comes before and after the blank.
Step 3: Prethink the Answer
- Looking at our analysis, Dr. Rodriguez is building his case with multiple pieces of evidence
- The first sentence gives us Evidence #1 (pain location), and the sentence after the blank gives us Evidence #2 (white blood cell levels)
- Both pieces of evidence support the same conclusion - that this is appendicitis
- The logical relationship we need is one that shows we're adding another piece of supporting evidence to strengthen the same argument
- We're not contrasting or specifying the previous point - we're building upon it with additional proof
- So the right answer should signal that we're adding another piece of evidence that supports the same diagnostic conclusion
Furthermore,
✓ Correct
- 'Furthermore' signals we're adding additional evidence to support the same point
- Fits perfectly with the pattern: Evidence #1 (pain location) + Evidence #2 (blood work) both supporting appendicitis diagnosis
- Creates logical flow from one piece of supporting evidence to another
Nevertheless,
✗ Incorrect
- 'Nevertheless' signals contrast or opposition to what came before
- Doesn't fit because both pieces of evidence support the same conclusion
- What trap this represents: Students might think this works because they see two different types of evidence (physical vs. lab), but the evidence is complementary, not contrasting
Conversely,
✗ Incorrect
- 'Conversely' indicates we're presenting an opposite viewpoint or contradictory information
- Both pieces of evidence actually agree and support the same diagnosis
- Creates illogical flow since the evidence doesn't oppose each other
Specifically,
✗ Incorrect
- 'Specifically' suggests we're narrowing down or clarifying the previous point
- The white blood cell information isn't a more specific version of the pain location - it's completely separate evidence
- What trap this represents: Students might think lab results are more 'specific' than physical symptoms, but here they're just different types of evidence, not a specification of the previous point