In the past decade, a decreasing percentage of money spent on treating

Question

In the past decade, a decreasing percentage of money spent on treating disease X went to pay for standard methods of treatment, which are known to be effective though they are expensive and painful. An increasing percentage is being spent on non-standard treatments, which cause little discomfort. Unfortunately, the nonstandard treatments have proved to be ineffective. Obviously, less money is being spent on effective treatments of disease X than was spent ten years ago.

Which of the following, if assumed, allows the conclusion above to be properly drawn

A. Varieties of disease X requiring expensive special treatment have become less common during the past decade

B. Nonstandard methods of treating disease X are most expensively now than they were a decade ago.

C. Of total medical expenditures, the percentage that is due treatment of disease X increased during the past decade

D. Most of the money spent on treating disease X during the last decade went to pay for nonstandard treatment

E. The total amount of money spent on treating disease X declined during the past decade

KarishmaB · Accepted Answer

Premises:
- A decreasing percentage of money spent on treating disease X went to pay for standard methods (effective) of treatment, 
- An increasing percentage is being spent on non-standard treatments (which are ineffective).

Conclusion: Less money is being spent now on effective treatment than treating disease X.

Something that jumps up right away. The premises talk about the percentage of money spent (decreasing percentage). The conclusion talks about the amount of money spent (less money). We can't deduce the conclusion until and unless we know something about the total money spent. 
If total money spent is the same or less, then a decreasing percentage means that less money is being spent now.
If total money spent is more than before, a decreasing percentage could still lead to the same amount of money or even more money being spent now.

We need to strengthen the conclusion (actually be able to establish it)

A. Varieties of disease X requiring expensive special treatment have become less common during the past decade
We don't know anything about special treatments.

B. Nonstandard methods of treating disease X are most expensively now than they were a decade ago. 
Irrelevant. Our point is about the total money being spent on effective vs ineffective methods.

C. Of total medical expenditures, the percentage that is due treatment of disease X increased during the past decade
We don't know whether the total medical expenditure has increased or decreased. Anyway, we need to establish that less money is being spent. This says that more money is being spent in disease X.

D.Most of the money spent on treating disease X during the last decade went to pay for nonstandard treatment
What percentage of money was spent in ether is irrelevant. It is about whether the percentage is increasing or decreasing.

E. The total amount of money spent on treating disease X declined during the past decade
This is what we needed as discussed above. If total money being spent is decreasing and its percentage being spent on effective treatment is also decreasing, then the amount of money being spent is certainly decreasing. A lower percentage of a lower amount is definitely lower.

Answer (E)

AkshdeepS · Answer

VeritasKarishma  : Should not answer choice E include the word "effective treatment of disease" instead of simply "treating disease" as the conclusion is about effective treatment. But this choice is saying overall treatment expense. What about ineffective treatment expenses as they have increased?

KarishmaB · Answer

No, you don't need the word effective treatment to draw the conclusion. Actually, if you add the word effective, (E) becomes the same as conclusion.

10 yrs ago:
Total money spent on both = $200
% spent on Effective = 70% ($140)
% spent on ineffective = 30% ($60)

Today:
Total money spent on both = $100 (As per option (E), this has decreased from 10 yrs ago)
% spent on Effective = 60% (argument tells us that this % is decreasing)
% spent on ineffective = 40%

Today, since total amount of money spent is lower and the % going to effective treatment is lower too, the money spent on effective treatment would be $60 which will be lower than the previous $140. 
Since you have a smaller whole, and a smaller percentage of that, the number you get will certainly be smaller than before.

chrisbrain2019 · Answer

We have to find an assumption that supports "Obviously,  less money is being spent now  on effective treatment than treating disease X than was spent ten years ago. "

Only contenders are D and E.

D.Most of the money spent on treating disease X during the last decade went to pay for nonstandard treatment

percentage/proportion in the past does not matter. even if 99% of the money was spent on nonstandard treatment and now it becomes 10%, the total money spent on treating disease X can increase so much that even 10% is greater than 99% 10 years ago.

E. The total amount of money spent on treating disease X declined during the past decade

If total money decreased and percentage of nonstandard treatment decreased, there is no way more money is being spent now on nonstandard treatment

E

dhruvasv5 · Answer

The conclusion of the argument is: Lesser money is spent on treatment, which is effective over the past decade. 
By pre-thinking assumptions there are 2 that come to my mind
1) Non standard treatment is not expensive(Nowhere that is mentioned) but I feel is assumed by the argument to reach the actual assumption
2) Percentage of money on effective decreases but amount can increase, we should be sure that is not the case, and that can happen only when the total amount of money spent decreases.Hence, option E.

auradediligodo · Answer

Hi everybody,

In the past decade, a decreasing percentage of money spent on treating disease X went to pay for standard methods of treatment, which are known to be effective though they are expensive and painful. An increasing percentage is being spent on non-standard treatments, which cause little discomfort. Unfortunately, the nonstandard treatments have proved to be ineffective. Obviously, less money is being spent now on effective treatment than treating disease X than was spent ten years ago.

Which of the following, if assumed, allows the conclusion above to be properly drawn

Pre-thinking: 
 We can easily see that while the conclusion is based on money expressed as a number the data used to support that conclusion talks about money expressed as a %. 
We are asked to find a statement that validates this conclusion.
The right way of doing this is to find first a falsification scenario and then negate it.

FS: Let's assume that in the past decade the money spent to treat the disease doubled, tripled etc... And let's imagine that the percentage allocated to st methods decreased by 1%. We can safely see how the total amount of money increased even tough the percentage allocated to st methods decrease.

Assumption: The total amount of money either remained the same or decreased in the past decade.

A. Varieties of disease X requiring expensive special treatment have become less common during the past decade
 Out of the scope

B. Nonstandard methods of treating disease X are most expensively now than they were a decade ago. 
 We are not concerned with how expensive treatments are but with how much money is spent on them. Incorrect

C. Of total medical expenditures, the percentage that is due treatment of disease X increased during the past decade
 Out of the scope

D.Most of the money spent on treating disease X during the last decade went to pay for nonstandard treatment
 Out of the scope

E. The total amount of money spent on treating disease X declined during the past decade
 In line with pre-thinking. Hence correct

It is a good day to be alive, cheers!

surya.nair · Answer

The percentage is quoted for a person or a nation or the whole disease X. Because if less number of people avail effective treatment while it becomes effective will also destroy the argument. Hence how could E be the answer.

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot:

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

This post was generated automatically.

In the past decade, a decreasing percentage of money spent on treating

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

In the past decade, a decreasing percentage of money spent on treating

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