carcass wrote:
In the 1950's sixty percent of treated cancer patients lived at least five years after detection of the disease. Now, sixty percent live at least seven years after detection. This fact demonstrates that, because of improved methods of treatment, cancer patients now live longer after they contract the disease than. cancer patients did in the 1950's.
The conclusion of the argument above depends on which of the following assumptions?
(A) In the 1950's only sixty percent of cancer patients received treatment, whereas now a substantially higher percentage does.
(B) Free medical treatment is more likely to be available now to people who have no health insurance than it was in the 1950's.
(C) Detection of cancer does not now take place, on average, significantly earlier in the progression of the disease than it did in the 1950's.
(D) Physicians now usually predict a longer life for cancer patients after detection of the disease than did physicians in the 1950's.
(E) The number of cancer patients now is approximately the same as it was in the 1950's
The Story ( As you Read): In the 1950's sixty percent of treated cancer patients lived at least five years after detection of the disease.
Inference: OK. Subset of patients is treated patients--treated means, cured in this case. And 60% of THIS set ( not all cancer patients) lived 5 years after DETECTION. An immediate inference has to be drawn here. timeline of life is from detection and not from treatment.Now, sixty percent live at least seven years after detection.
Inference: Now, lets say in 2021, those same set of patients ( not literally the same set, but the classified set of people) live 7 years longer.BUT after detection.Conclusion: This fact demonstrates that, because of improved methods of treatment, cancer patients now live longer after they contract the disease than. cancer patients did in the 1950's.
Evaluate the conclusion: Author concludes that this longitivtiy of life AFTER DETECTION is due to the improved treatment. And why does he say so? He says so because of the 2 Facts that author has quoted above. Same set of people live 7 years after treatment than did the earlier set of people.
Is it necessary that the longitivtiy was due to Medical treatment? WHAT IF:
1. Assuming the patients were detected at the same time in 1950's and now, but the treatments were provided earlier to the patients NOW than in 1950's?
So one of the assumption 1 could be: there was no difference in the stage at which the treatments were provided to the 2 sets of patients.
2. Similarly, what if the detection Tech has improved NOW. SO as to detect the disease at a much earlier stage than what could be in 1950's?
Assumption 2: No, the detection tech has not improved significantly to allow for the detection much earlier now than in 1950.Lets Come to the options:
(A) In the 1950's only sixty percent of cancer patients received treatment, whereas now a substantially higher percentage does.
Observation: Notice that this statement talks about ALL patients, whereas the argument is about TREATED patients only. Moreover, this statement basically says a larger proportion receives the treatment now. But does that impact the longitivtiy of life, is not clearly laid out anywhere in the argument. Hence this is OUT of SCOPE.(B) Free medical treatment is more likely to be available now to people who have no health insurance than it was in the 1950's.
More or less like the option A. Argument is not centered around how many receive the treatment NOW as compared to 1950. Argument is centered around detection and longevity. Hence this piece of information is again OUT of SCOPE.(C) Detection of cancer does not now take place, on average, significantly earlier in the progression of the disease than it did in the 1950's.
Observation: Matches our Assumption 2 above. IS the Answer.(D) Physicians now usually predict a longer life for cancer patients after detection of the disease than did physicians in the 1950's.
(E) The number of cancer patients now is approximately the same as it was in the 1950's[/quote]
Both options above are irrelevant to the argument: Physicains prediction is no where as factor cited. Also, IN option E, the number even if is not the same, we are talking about proportion, and longevity, so numbers doesn't matter. Both can be rejected on the grounds of being irrelevant.
close
12 Jul 2019, 07:36
35%
(medium)
31%
(01:52)
wrong 
