koolgmat wrote:
There are tests to detect some of the rare genetic flaws that increase the likelihood of certain diseases. If these tests are performed, then a person with a rare genetic flaw that is detected can receive the appropriate preventive treatment. Since it costs the health-care system less to prevent a disease than to treat it after it has occurred, widespread genetic screening will reduce the overall cost of health care.
The argument assumes which one of the following?
(A) The cost of treating patients who would. in the absence of screening, develop diseases that are linked to rare genetic flaws would be more than the combined costs of widespread screening and preventive treatment.
(B) Most diseases linked to rare genetic flaws are preventable.
(C) The resources allocated by hospitals to the treatment of persons with diseases linked to genetic flaws will increase once screening is widely available.
(D) Even if the genetic tests are performed, many people whose rare genetic flaws are detected will develop diseases linked to the flaws as a consequence of not receiving the appropriate preventive treatment.
(E) If preventive treatment is given to patients with rare genetic flaws, additional funds will be available for treating the more common diseases.
Some rare genetic flaws that make some diseases more likely to happen can be tested and diseases prevented.
Prevention is cheaper than treatment.
Conclusion: Widespread genetic screening will reduce the overall cost of health care.
What is the assumption in this conclusion?
We are concluding that widespread screening and prevention will reduce overall cost.
But there is a gap. We know that preventive treatment is cheaper than treatment. But what about when we account for cost of widespread screening (means screen most people) and preventive course for all who have those genes?
Scenario 1: Say of a population of 1000, 5 people are found with those genes. So we screen 1000 people and do preventive treatment on those 5 people.
vs
Scenario 2: Say of the 1000, 2 develop the disease so we do treatment for those 2.
What costs more? We don't know. All we know is that prevention for 1 person is cheaper than treatment for 1 person.
To conclude that the first scenario costs less, we are assuming that widespread screening + prevention costs less than treatment costs of a few.
So our conclusion assumes option (A) i.e. option (A) must be true for our conclusion to stand.
(B) Most diseases linked to rare genetic flaws are preventable.
We don't need most diseases to be preventable. Even if some are preventable, and in their cases, if scenario 1 is cheaper than scenario 2, then overall health care costs will reduce.
Hence option (B) is not an assumption.