The evidence of the last 50 years in this country shows how unlikely

Question

The evidence of the last 50 years in this country shows how unlikely it is that the cost of treating any particular disease in the population at large will fall merely because of improvements in medical technology. For while medical technology advanced tremendously during that time, annual overall spending on disease treatment also rose dramatically.

The argument is vulnerable to challenge on the grounds that it fails to take into account the possibility of change in each of the following EXCEPT

A. the average age of the population

B. the value of money as a result of inflation

C. the size of the population

D. the number of medical researchers

E. the types of disease prevalent in the population

Show Spoiler

Attachment:

111.5.png

MartyMurray · Accepted Answer

The evidence of the last 50 years in this country shows how unlikely it is that the cost of treating any particular disease in the population at large will fall merely because of improvements in medical technology. For while medical technology advanced tremendously during that time, annual overall spending on disease treatment also rose dramatically.

The conclusion of the argument is the following:

The evidence of the last 50 years in this country shows how unlikely it is that the cost of treating any particular disease in the population at large will fall merely because of improvements in medical technology.

The support for the conclusion is the following:

while medical technology advanced tremendously during that time, annual overall spending on disease treatment also rose dramatically

One issue with this argument that may jump out at us is that the conclusion is about "the cost of treating any particular disease" whereas the evidence is about "overall annual spending on disease treatment."

So, basically, the author has used evidence about an increase in TOTAL spending to support the conclusion that the cost of treating any PARTICULAR disease does not fall because of improvements in medical technology.

Using that evidence to support the conclusion is a questionable approach since the fact that overall spending increased does not necessarily indicate that the cost of treating any particular disease did not fall. After all, there could be many reasons why overall spending would increase even if the cost of treating specific diseases fell.

The argument is vulnerable to challenge on the grounds that it fails to take into account the possibility of change in each of the following EXCEPT

This question is a Logical Flaw EXCEPT question. So, the correct answer will be the only choice that does NOT bring up a variable such that the argument is flawed because it fails to take into account the possibility that that variable has changed.

A. the average age of the population

The argument is flawed because it does not take into account the possibility of change in "the average age of the population."

After all, if the average age has increased, that change could be the reason why "annual overall spending on disease treatment ... rose dramatically."

So, if the average age of the population changed, it could be that the cost of treating any particular disease in the population at large DOES fall because of improvements in medical technology but overall spending increased anyway because the average age increased and older people used medical services more.

In that case, the argument's conclusion does not follow from the evidence.

Eliminate.

B. the value of money as a result of inflation

The argument is flawed because it does not take into account the possibility of change in "the value of money as a result of inflation."

After all, if the value of money has changed as a result of inflation, that change could be the reason why "annual overall spending on disease treatment ... rose dramatically."

So, if the value of money did change, it could be that the cost of treating any particular disease in the population at large DOES fall because of improvements in medical technology but overall spending increased anyway because the value of money changed as a result of inflation.

In that case, the argument's conclusion does not follow from the evidence.

Eliminate.

C. the size of the population

The argument is flawed because it does not take into account the possibility of change in "the size of the population."

After all, if the size of the population has increased, that change could be the reason why "annual overall spending on disease treatment ... rose dramatically."

So, if the size of the population changed, it could be that the cost of treating any particular disease in the population at large DOES fall because of improvements in medical technology but overall spending increased anyway because the size of the population increased and so there were more people spending on medical services.

In that case, the argument's conclusion does not follow from the evidence.

Eliminate.

D. the number of medical researchers

This choice is interesting.

Let's say that the author has failed to take into account that there may have been a change in the number of medical researchers. Maybe the number of medical researchers has increased.

OK, in that case, it could be that an increase in the number of medical researchers has somehow caused the cost of treating any particular disease to increase.

Would that mean that the author's conclusion isn't correct?

No, because in that case, the pattern that the author has identified still exists. Spending has increased as technology has improved. Maybe the reason is that improvements in technology require more researchers. OK, in that case, costs still appear to have increased even though technology improved. So, the author's argument still works.

To better understand why this choice isn't correct, we can consider the difference between this choice and the other choices.

All the other choices somehow INDICATE THAT THE COST OF TREATING ANY PARTICULAR DISEASE MAY NOT ACTUALLY HAVE INCREASED. They all indicate that something other than increases in the costs of treating particular diseases, such as a population increase or inflation may have caused "overall spending" to increase. So, those choices indicate that the author may have arrived at an invalid conclusion because the author failed to consider something.

In other words, the other choices indicate that, even though the premise that "overall spending" increased is true, it may not be true that improvements in technology don't lead to decreases in "the cost of treating any particular disease."

In contrast, this choice may EXPLAIN WHY COSTS DID INCREASE. Maybe they increased because of a change in the number of researchers.

OK, sure, but in that case, costs still increased. So, the author could be correct in saying that improvements in technology aren't likely to cause costs to decrease because, regardless of why costs have increased, they have increased. So, the conclusion still makes sense.

So, even if there was a change in the number of medical researchers, the evidence that spending has increased still supports the conclusion.

Thus, since this question is a Logical Flaw EXCEPT question, this choice is correct because it's the only one that does not highlight a flaw in the argument.

Keep.

E. the types of disease prevalent in the population

The argument is flawed because it does not take into account the possibility of change in "the types of disease prevalent in the population."

After all, if the types of disease prevalent in the population have changed, that change could be the reason why "annual overall spending on disease treatment ... rose dramatically." After all, the new types of diseases that are prevalent could be more expensive to treat than the ones that were prevalent before.

So, if the types of disease prevalent in the population have changed, it could be that the cost of treating any particular disease in the population at large DOES fall because of improvements in medical technology but overall spending increased anyway because the types of disease prevalent in the population changed with the result that overall spending increased.

In that case, the argument's conclusion does not follow from the evidence.

Eliminate.

Correct answer:  D

sayan640 · Answer

MartyMurray   KarishmaB   GMATNinja  I selected option D because the "number of researchers " has no bearing on the cost of a particular disease. The argument dint make any mistake by failing to take into account the number of medical researchers because we don't know the efficiency of each medical researcher / the productivity of each researcher and we are told that the significant advancement in medical technology has  already  been made.
Is my reasoning my correct ?
Please advise.  KarishmaB   MartyMurray   GMATNinja

Posted from my mobile device

sayan640 · Answer

MartyMurray  ,  KarishmaB 
I have little bit doubt regarding your explanation for option B.
Don't you think the inflation will affect both the treatment of a particular disease and the overall annual cost of treating all the diseases ?
The total treatment cost consists of each particular treatment cost ..right ? 
Please correct me if I wrong.

Posted from my mobile device

tanishqgirotra · Answer

how come D is the correct option here. I feel like if there is a change in the number of medical researchers, lets say there is an increase, hence, government will have to spend more in order to hire these researchers and therefore it would increase the overall spending in the treatment of the disease. Please correct me if my reasoning is wrong.

KarishmaB · Answer

The author's argument is that in the last 50 years, tech has improved vastly. But overall cost of "disease treatment" in the country (what the country spends on disease treatment each year) has also increased vastly. Say the cost was 10 Million 50 years ago and now it is 1 Billion.

Your first thought might be that this is such a wild argument. For me to make a meaningful comparison between the two years, I need to take many factors into account and hold them steady in both years. For example,  I need to compare the per person cost of treatment for a person of a particular age (cost of treatment for the same disease could be higher for an old person) for a particular disease at, say, the present value of the currency.

Then the question stem makes sense. The argument fails to take into account all the following (4 things) EXCEPT.

A. the average age of the population

In 50 years, the average age of the population could have increased a lot leading to many older people falling sick severly and hence overall increase in cost. As we discussed above, this needs to be taken into account.

B. the value of money as a result of inflation

As we discussed, the value of the currency has to be held constant in the comparison. If I say that 10 years ago, bread cost $2 and now it costs $5, that is not a meaningful comparison. Because of inflation, perhaps the $2 of 10 years ago is equal to $4. Perhaps the increase in cost of bread is of $1 only in real value of money terms.

C. the size of the population

As we said, we need to compare the cost per person. If the population today is twice of what it was 50 years ago, the total cost of treatment would be higher.

D. the number of medical researchers

The number of medical researchers doesn't matter. If there were more, and hence the cost of treatment increased, it just goes to show the author's point - that no matter how much you keep advancing tech, the cost doesn't decrease. The reason the cost doesn't decrease is irrelevant -  it could be more researchers, more high-end equipment or whatever else.
Our question is - Is the author's argument valid? Is it true that no matter how much tech advancement happens, the cost of treatment does not decrease?

E. the types of disease prevalent in the population

What if today the type of diseases prevalent are far more complicated than 50 years ago? As we said, we need to compare for one particular disease. Its cost of treatment 50 years ago vs today. That would tell us the difference tech has made.

Answer (D)

mpobisetty · Answer

Hi  MartyMurray , had a quick question. I thought that an increase in number of medical researchers would make the technology for treating a disease better and perhaps even cheaper, but the extra cost of the increased number of medical researchers would nullify any cost savings due to  improvements in medical technology.

Would appreciate your thoughts on this.

MartyMurray · Answer

Interesting question.

I've edited my explanation above to better explain why failing to consider the number of medical researchers doesn't constitute a flaw in the argument.

So, please see the current version of the explanation and let me know if you have any further questions.

ClaireCHEN · Answer

The argument is vulnerable to challenge on the grounds that it fails to take into account the possibility of change in each of the following EXCEPT

So here we are trying to find the factor that would make medical expense increases largely even if there is technology advancement.

A. the average age of the population --Yes, the more the elder, the higher it might be the expense

B. the value of money as a result of inflation -- Yes, it leads to the increase of the absolute value

C. the size of the population -- Yes it means the increase is inevitable

D. the number of medical researchers -- Not sure depends on the % study investment takes, keep

E. the types of disease prevalent in the population -- Yes the more prevalent the disease is, the higher the costs are

So choose D.

The evidence of the last 50 years in this country shows how unlikely

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

­The evidence of the last 50 years in this country shows how unlikely

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

The evidence of the last 50 years in this country shows how unlikely