Because community clinics do not have a doctor on site and are cheaper

Hi Mickey

Option (E) does not state that "chronic illness is the major contributor to health care cost" as you have mentioned. This would have implied that chronic illnesses account for the majority of healthcare expenses.

Option (E) states: Chronic illnesses rather than common illnesses are a major contributor to health care costs. This implies that chronic illnesses form a material (not insignificant) portion of healthcare expenses. This may or may not be >50%. Therefore it is hard to say that this weakens UHC's argument.

On the other hand, option (D) is unambiguous that at least a majority of people consult doctors for a second opinion, thereby incurring additional costs. This is a better option (though I take your point that we do not know the exact costs associated with taking a second opinion).

Hope this helps.

E is not correct because it ignores the fact that even if common illnesses are not a major part of healthcare costs, still reducing them will lower the overall health care costs. so it still supports the conclusion

D is correct because it says that most people go for 2nd opinion, which if not increase the cost will not reduce the cost for sure

Even if chronic illness is major part of the expense, spending on normal illness will reduce the cost. (E) doesn't weaken the argument. (D) definitely does.

Could you please refer some articles or blogs to study the "Articles(a, an, and the) " in detail
svasan05

ThatDudeKnows avigutman not clear here as to whose overall healthcare costs are we referring to- to UHC or patients'? Whose do we want to reduce? And not clear why not E still. If patients majorly have chronic illnesses, then clearly setting up common illness community center will not necessarily reduce overall health care costs to patients

Great questions, Elite097. This is why I only deal with official GMAT problems. No offence to whoever created this one.
My advice: stick to OG material.

Elite097

We are asked to cast doubt on the expected outcome. The expected outcome is that the plan will reduce overall costs. Premise: we're removing the expense of the doctor from the process in treating most common illnesses.

Answer choice D tells us that we aren't actually removing the expense of the doctor from the process, so how will we be saving money?

Answer choice E fails since just because the clinic isn't effective in all cases, it is effective on some, and lowing costs on some reduces overall costs.

As for your question about whose overall costs, I think the word "overall" means regardless of who is paying it. If we were able to remove the doctor expense (and it weren't added back in elsewhere as posited by D), we would lower the overall costs. Whether that savings is to UHC or the patient doesn't impact that there's an overall savings.

I somewhat get what you are trying to say in the end but I do not get how it doesnt matter whether the expense is regardless of whose cost it is. I mean if it's patients' costs, then It does not matter whether they are going to other doctors and spending extra because UHC set up these centers to reduce health care costs and technically they are succeeding in reducing the healthcare costs from their end, regardless of whether patients still choose to go to other doctors for their needs. This is not UHC's lookout what patients are still trying to do no? We are talking about UHC reducing overall healthcare costs by setting up common illness centers. How does it matter what patients incur extra despite this. UHC still did what they had to successfully. ThatDudeKnows

Overall costs = UHC costs + patient costs.
The argument addresses overall. If UHC goes down by $1 and patient goes up by $1, overall stays the same.

e is kind of irrelevant. The main argument is that community clinic is cheaper to operate and the bonus can treat almost all common illness thus translate to cheaper insurance policy.
Option E is if i were in chronic condition, i still will buy the insurance. May or may need.
Option D people end up having a second opinion.so basically it says people regsiter for first consultation but end up being treated in hospital since the doctors are there. So having many outlets with no doctors are not gonna work.

Posted from my mobile device

To determine which option throws the most doubt on the expected outcome of UHC's plan to lower overall healthcare costs by opening community clinics, we need to carefully analyze each option:

(A) Community clinics are packed with most of the testing and diagnostic equipment found in a doctor's office.
This option suggests that community clinics have similar equipment to doctor's offices, which would support their ability to treat common illnesses effectively, aligning with UHC's expectation. This option does not throw doubt on the expected outcome.

(B) Patients do not need to have insurance to be treated in community clinics.
This option is not directly relevant to UHC's expectation of lowering overall healthcare costs for their insured members. It does not throw doubt on the expected outcome.

(C) As health care costs reduce, UHC will be pressurized to reduce its health premium which may in turn lower its profits.
This option suggests that if UHC's plan succeeds in lowering healthcare costs, they may face pressure to reduce premiums, potentially impacting their profits. However, this does not directly contradict the expected outcome of lowering overall healthcare costs.

(D) A recent study concluded that most people who go to community clinics end up consulting doctors to get a second medical opinion.
This option directly contradicts the premise that community clinics can effectively treat most common illnesses. If patients frequently seek a second opinion from doctors after visiting community clinics, it implies that the clinics may not provide adequate care, which would undermine UHC's expectation of lowering overall healthcare costs.

(E) Chronic illnesses rather than common illnesses are a major contributor to health care costs.
This option suggests that the focus on treating common illnesses at community clinics may not significantly impact overall healthcare costs if chronic illnesses are the major cost driver. This throws doubt on UHC's expectation that treating common illnesses at community clinics will lower overall healthcare costs.

Based on the analysis, options (D) and (E) throw the most doubt on the expected outcome of UHC's plan by directly contradicting the premise that community clinics can effectively treat common illnesses and lower overall healthcare costs. However, option (D) seems to throw the most doubt by suggesting that community clinics may not provide adequate care, leading patients to seek second opinions from doctors.