Final Answer:
The doctor discerns that Beatrice is lying about the dog attack through a combination of medical examination and the inconsistency in her account of the incident.
Step-by-step explanation:
In the given scenario, the doctor likely employs diagnostic skills and medical expertise to assess Beatrice's injuries. Medical professionals are trained to distinguish between different types of wounds and injuries, and they often rely on their knowledge to identify the likely cause. If Beatrice describes a dog attack but the doctor observes injuries inconsistent with such an event, it raises suspicion and prompts further inquiry.
Moreover, the doctor may engage in a conversation with Beatrice to gather additional information. Inconsistencies in her narrative, such as changes in details or hesitations in her responses, can be telltale signs of deception. Medical practitioners, especially in emergency situations, may need to quickly assess the accuracy of a patient's account to provide appropriate care. The doctor's ability to perceive disparities between Beatrice's description and the observed injuries, combined with astute questioning, allows them to deduce the falsehood in her account of the dog attack.
Ultimately, the doctor's expertise in both medical examination and interpersonal communication plays a crucial role in unraveling the truth behind Beatrice's injuries. This nuanced approach reflects the multifaceted nature of healthcare, where professionals must not only diagnose physical ailments but also navigate the complexities of patient communication and honesty.