Economist: On average, the emergency treatment for an elderly person

Straight C here.

Treatment cost after a fall ---------> $11,000
Treatment program cost ---------> $12,500

As per the passage, new treatment program cost is more so it is not justified.

C weakens this conclusion directly by stating that "after a fall there is a long term pain, the treatment cost for which is not accounted for in the first treatment average cost ($11,000)" and hence the total cost of treatment after the new program is less.

Economist: On average, the emergency treatment for an elderly person for injuries resulting from a fall costs $11,000. 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 $12,500 and thus cannot be justified.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the conclusion of the argument?

Weakener type question.
Conclusion: New therapeutic program is costlier that average treatment cost for fall therefor it is not justified.
Assumption.: Elderly people are not subject to more than one fall during their life-span.

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 - Effects of duration of program are not in discussion. Moreover, severity or seriousness of fall are not discussed.

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 - Places for probability of fall are not in discussion. Moreover, severity or seriousness of fall are not discussed.

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 - Might be true. Say, average per-person cost of emergency treatment is 11,000+X (X is medication cost for long-term pain). Now, it can be less than or more than 12,500.

D. The new therapeutic program focuses on therapies other than medication, since over medication can cause disorientation and hence increase the likelihood that an elderly person will have a serious fall - As medication increases the chances of further fall therefore cost will be atleast more than 22,000. Therefore, new therapeutic program will be cheaper and it undermines the conclusion.

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 - IT strengthen the conclusion instead of weaken it as cist of new program increase further.

OA please.....

Economist: On average, the emergency treatment for an elderly person for injuries resulting from a fall costs $11,000. 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 $12,500 and thus cannot be justified.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the conclusion of the argument?

Conclusion : Therapeutic program costs $12500 where as emergency treatment costs only $11000 so there is no reason for a person to undergo the therapeutic program.
Assumption : Elderly person will not be injured from a fall more than once.

We need to pick an answer that weakens this assumption i.e., elderly person when injured more than once are likely to benefit from the new therapeutic program because if a person falls twice it will cost him $22000(11 + 11) but the program cost is only $12500 so obviously program cost is 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. - This is out of scope since the argument doesn't discuss the period of the therapeutic program. We are concerned about the costs arising from emergency treatment and the therapeutic program.

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. - Out of scope for the same reasons as above.

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. - This choice says 'Frequent result' so we know it will cost more than 11k plus medication. i.e., falling twice may be 22k which is clearly less than program cost. Hence this is the best choice out of all answer options because it weakens the conclusion.

D. The new therapeutic program focuses on therapies other than medication, since over medication can cause disorientation and hence increase the likelihood that an elderly person will have a serious fall. - This says that the program doesn't use medication so that it can avoid frequent falls. But doesn't compare the costs of program and emergency treatment so can't be the answer. The conclusion says the cost is not justified. so we need to pick an answer where the costs are justified.

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. - This talks about the costs associated within the program itself but doesn't compare with the emergency costs.

Can someone explain why Option E is wrong?

Could it not be possible that regular visits of health professionals is the reason for additional cost (in case of 12500$)? It could/could not be. Is that the reason this answer choice is wrong?

Thanks in advance!

Hi Chef ,

Here I go:

E is actually a strengthener to the argument. It is saying the new technique is going to have more costs and thus what the author concluded "it is not justified" is true.

Plus, why this cost os more is irrelevant. What author said is still true.

But we need to weaken the conclusion. Hence, E is out.

Does that make sense?

Stem analysis:

Facts: (1) Emergency treatment for a call costs $11,000. (2) A program can help people from falling. (3) The cost of the program is $12,500.

Argument: Based on the cost of the program and the cost of falling the program can't be justified.

Assumptions: Whoever came up with this argument would need to assume that either there's not other non-emergency costs of a fall not being accounted for, OR that there's not some financial benefit of not falling (i.e. what if there is a deduction in insurance payments for those who engage in this program).

Question Analysis:
(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. This tells us nothing about the cost, so out of scope.

(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. There is not mention of the location of a fall in the stem, and furthermore this doesn't tell us anything about costs.

(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. Hm interesting, so this would mean that the assumption that there's no other unaccounted for non-emergency costs is a pretty bad assumptions. This answer choice directly attacks an assumption made by the author of this argument, so it absolutely weakens.

(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. Similar to (A) and (B), there's no relation to an argument about costs.

(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. If anything this strengthens the argument. Because this suggests that the long term costs will accelerate. However this isn't something I'd consider out of scope to the argument.

Economist: On average, the emergency treatment for an elderly person for injuries resulting from a fall costs $11,000.

On average,

When an elderly person falls and gets injured, the emergency treatment of such injuries costs $11,00

A new therapeutic program can significantly reduce an elderly person’s chances of falling.

A new therapeutic program -> Significant reduction in an elderly person’s chances of falling

Though obviously desirable for many reasons, this treatment program will cost $12,500 and thus cannot be justified

The treatment program is clearly good for many reasons. However, since the program will cost $12,500 (i.e., more than the costs associated with emergency treatment of injuries resulting from a fall), the program cannot be justified.



The GIST

Conclusion: The therapeutic program cannot be justified.

Support: It costs $12,500 i.e., more than the average cost of the emergency treatment of injuries resulting from a fall.

The GAPS

How can we justify the therapeutic program even though it costs more than the emergency treatment of injuries resulting from a fall?

1. Perhaps, the program, on average, saves more than one fall per elderly person (an elderly person can fall more than once in his lifetime)
2. Perhaps, the elderly person loses income when he undergoes treatment for his injuries. Thus, the economic impact of a fall is more than just the cost of the treatment.
3. Maybe people are willing to pay more than the cost of the treatment for a program that helps them not undergo the whole ordeal of pain, hospitalization, treatment, and medication in the first place.

There can, of course, be more gaps.






(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.

Incorrect. This option has NO IMPACT on the argument.

The option compares the number of serious falls between two sets of elderly people:
1. those who had followed the program for only a few months (i.e., those who did not follow the program for its minimum recommended duration)
2. those who had followed the program for its recommended minimum duration of one year

The option says that the first group had more serious falls than the second group. Thus, the option suggests that the program is effective in bringing down the number of falls.

However, the argument already takes into account the idea that the program is effective in reducing the chances of a fall. The argument says that despite its effectiveness, since it costs more than the treatment of a fall, the program is not justified. This reasoning is nowhere impacted by this option.

(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.

Incorrect. This option has NO IMPACT on the argument.

The option compares the frequency of falls resulting in serious injuries between two sets of elderly people:
Those living in nursing homes
Those living alone at home

The option says that the frequency of such falls is smaller in the first set of people than in the second set of people.

This option indicates another way to reduce the chances of a fall - by admitting elderly people living alone to a nursing home.

However, this idea has no relevance to the argument at hand.

(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.

Correct. The option says that:
1. Injuries resulting from a fall frequently result in long-term pain
2. The medication for this pain is not counted in the emergency treatment costs talked about above

The option talks about an aspect of cost missed in the argument. If we take this cost into consideration, it is perhaps possible that the total medical cost may go beyond $12,500. Thus, the option indicates that the therapeutic program can be justified.

Moreover, apart from the financial aspect, long-term pain sounds like a very undesirable thing. So, perhaps people would be willing to pay for a program that helps prevent that - despite the seeming high cost.

So, this option weakens the argument.


(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.

Incorrect. This option has NO IMPACT for almost the same reason as option A had no impact.

This option says that the therapeutic program avoids something (medication) that can increase the likelihood of a serious fall in an elderly person.

Thus, this option supports that the program reduces the chances of a fall of an elderly person.

However, the argument already takes into account the idea that the program is effective in reducing the chances of a fall. The argument says that despite its effectiveness, since it costs more than the treatment of a fall, the program is not justified. This reasoning is nowhere impacted by this option.

(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.


Incorrect. This option has NO IMPACT on the argument.

The option says that a significant component of the costs of the program is something (regular visits by health care professionals) whose costs increase more rapidly than the costs of other elements of the program.

Does the option indicate that the costs of this program will increase more rapidly than the emergency treatment costs?

NOT AT ALL.

This is a mistake some of you may be making.

The option just compares two components of the costs of the program; it doesn’t compare the growth of the costs of the program with the growth of the costs of the treatment. Even if the significant component of the program grows in costs faster than the other component, the overall costs of the program can still grow significantly slower than the emergency treatment costs.

Hi Karishma, I took 2min 40s to answer this question correctly. What do you think about that? How could I have improved on my timing for the same?

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.