Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
In the past decade, a decreasing percentage of money spent [#permalink]
27 Aug 2006, 18:38
0% (00:00) correct
0% (00:00) wrong based on 3 sessions
HideShow timer Statistics
In the past decade, a decreasing percentage of money spent on treating disease X went to pay for standard methods of treatment, which are known to be effective though they are expensive and painful. An increasing percentage is being spent on nonstandard treatments, which cause little discomfort. Unfortunately, the nonstandard treatments have proved to be ineffective. Obviously, less money is being spent on effective treatments of disease X than was spent ten years ago.
Which one of the following, if assumed, allows the conclusion above to be properly drawn?
(A) Varieties of disease X requiring expensive special treatment have become less common during the past decade.
(B) Nonstandard methods of treating disease X are more expensive now than they were a decade ago.
(C) Of total medical expenditures, the percentage that is due to treatment of disease X increased during the past decade.
(D) Most of the money spent on treating disease X during the last decade went to pay for nonstandard treatments.
(E) The total amount of money spent on treating disease X slowly declined during the past decade.
D for me on this one
less money is being spent on effective treatments of disease X than was spent ten years ago
decreasing percentage of money spent on treating disease X went to pay for standard methods of treatment, which are known to be effective though they are expensive and painful. An increasing percentage is being spent on nonstandard treatments, which cause little discomfort.
on the first sight the information is sufficientm but we don't know
what was the ratio of money spendings for traditional med to money spendings for notraditional medicine.
For example if the ratio was 90 to 10 , and after increasing investments in notraditional medicine it became 60 to 40 than coclusion is wrong.
So I think D it is because it gives us information about money sharing between trad med abd notrad medicine _________________
In the argument.. both standard and non-standard treatments saw increase in spending, yet the author says " less money is being spent on effective treatments of disease X than was spent ten years ago."
This implies that the cost of non-standard treatments has gone up.
E does not make logical sense. We are talking about money allocation not about the amount of money. Money is being allocated to "nontraditional" not "ineffective" treatment. It is believed that traditional treatment is more effective than nontraditional treatment, but the money is still being spent on this disease.
Now that I reread the paragraph, I actually believe that no one single answer is correct. D (which I believed was right) makes too broad of a statement (most money) we do not know the actual allocation.
A decreasing precentage of money, does not actually mean less money. We have to know more about the moving parts to deduce this. This is why I cannot agree with E.
A,B,C also make assumptions not answered in the statement above.
Check out this awesome article about Anderson on Poets Quants, http://poetsandquants.com/2015/01/02/uclas-anderson-school-morphs-into-a-friendly-tech-hub/ . Anderson is a great place! Sorry for the lack of updates recently. I...