industrialized nations have reported a sharp rise in the per capita

The options are very confusing.
Please guide.

Hello

The passage states that since the number of elderly people is increasing and since they have more reasons to go to hospitals, the per capita cost of health care will increase.
What does the author assume in stating so?

If the cost of health care for young people is more than old people and if the number of young people going to hospital decreases, then the conclusion will break down.

Now let us evaluate the answer choices.

A)It fails to consider the actual frequency of use of health care services by younger people and the resulting costs of that use. this is very much along the lines of our pre thinking.

B)It assumes that the cost of health care will remain stable at current levels. Nowhere in the passage is such an assumption made. Even if the cost of health care comes down by a very less value, the per capita cost could increase.

C) It fails to cite actual numbers in making its claim. Out of scope.

D)It only considers the number of times someone might seek health care, rather than considering the cost of that care. This is a trap answer. Even if the cost per visit is low, if the number of visits is increasing, the total cost will increase.

E)It discusses health care in terms of two very broad-based segments of the community, without considering the actual composition of those segments. Out of scope.

Cost per Capita of Health Care = (Total Cost) / (Number of People) -> Many nations have reported a sharp increase.
No information given, as to why it's increased, or what caused it to increase
Author concludes this will likely continue as the population is predominantly older, and older people require health care more than younger people.
Again, nothing supports this conclusion made by the author

So the premise and the conclusion have a HUGE gap.

A - Yes, the author does ignore the frequency of health care required by the younger people and it's cost. If the sharp increase in cost per capita of health care was solely down to the younger people, then this entire argument falls apart. KEEP.
B - The author hasn't assumed that the costs will remain stable. The author is just saying that the cost per capita will continue to rise, and the only explanation he gives is 'older people's requirements'. OUT.
C - This is not an error in reasoning, but an error in citing evidence for his claims. Claims that are half baked. For e.g. If we assume that 85% of the population is older, and per visit cost is $100. I still know nothing about the younger population to draw a proper conclusion. OUT.
D - Again, similar to C. The argument is only considering older people as a piece of the puzzle, and there is no information about the younger people. OUT.
E - This is irrelevant, as this statement is talking about breaking down the 2 sets into its subsets, but that exercise is futile if the author only uses one group to support his conclusion i.e. the older people.

A is the answer.

The reason D is tempting is because of the formula given to calculate the cost per capita of health care. Even if we have the actual numbers i.e. the total cost, and the total population. We still won't be able to challenge the author's conclusion that older people are causing and will cause the cost per capita to increase.

Hope this helps.

I agree that there isn't really a best answer among the choices.

I am not convinced with the explanation provided above. The question asks for error in the reasoning of the prediction. I still think the answer is D.

What is wrong with option B? need exprt reply

C and E can be easily negated.
I feel that A, B, and D are all partial explanations.