V07-16

Official Solution:

Analyst: On average, the Urgent treatment for an elderly person for injuries resulting from a fall costs USD 10,000. A new therapeutic program can significantly reduce an elderly person's chances of falling. Though obviously desirable for many reasons, this treatment program will cost $15,000 and thus cannot be justified.

A. Among elderly people who had followed the program for only a few months, the number of serious falls reported was higher than it was for people who had followed the program for its recommended minimum length of one year.
B. Falls resulting in serious injuries are less common among elderly people living in nursing homes than they are among elderly people who live alone at home.
C. A frequent result of injuries sustained in falls is long-term pain, medication for which is not counted among the average per-person costs of emergency treatment for elderly people's injuries from such falls.
D. The new therapeutic program focuses on therapies other than medication, since overmedication can cause disorientation and hence increase the likelihood that an elderly person will have a serious fall.
E. A significant portion of the cost of the new therapeutic program is represented by regular visits by health care professionals, the costs of which tend to increase more rapidly than do those of other elements of the program.


We know for sure that 11000 < 12500; this is not something that can be questioned. So, if you want to damage this argument, you have to find something that will swing this inequality the other way. by definition, that's going to have to be one of two things:

1. Some other, hidden cost of the emergency treatment that's not inherent in the original \(11000 price tag (and that would therefore raise the real price of emergency treatment) \\
\\
... or ... \\
\\
2. Some hidden financial savings that's not inherent in the original\)12500 price tag (and that would therefore lower the real cost of the treatment program)

Choice (c) is the definite winner here, since it satisfies #1 here exactly. (in fact, the problem even spells out that the extra cost is "not included in the cost of emergency treatment".)

choice (d) doesn't help, because, if anything, it just provides an extra reason to believe something that's already stated in the passage. in particular, the passage already tells us that the new therapeutic program can significantly reduce an elderly person's chances of falling.

choice (e) provides a nice reason WHY the program might reduce those chances -- but it's already stated as a fact that those chances are reduced! thus, the specific reasons why don't help; those are already factored into the statement made in the argument.


Answer: C