RyanDe680 wrote:
Treatment for hypertension forestalls certain medical expenses by preventing strokes and heart disease. Yet any money so saved amounts to only one-fourth of the expenditures required to treat the hypertensive population. Therefore, there is no economic justification for preventive treatment for hypertension.
Which of the following, if true, is most damaging to the conclusion above?
A) The many fatal stroke and heart attacks resulting from untreated hypertension cause insignificant medical expenditures but large economic losses of other sorts.
B) The cost, per patient, of preventive treatment for hypertension would remain constant even if such treatment were instituted on a large scale.
C) In matters of health care, economic considerations should ideally not be dominant.
D) Effective prevention presupposes early diagnosis, and programs to ensure early diagnosis are costly.
E) The net savings in medical resources achieved by some preventive health measures are smaller than the net losses attributable to certain other measures of this kind.
OA to follow.
I really like the way Gmac make reasoning! It is really close to life!
Certain medical expense: 1000 USD
By use treament to prevent strokes and heart deaseas, you saved 1/4 that expense, it means: 1/4*1000 =200 USD
You had 200 USD saved to keep in your pockets, but you still claimed that NO ECONOMIC JUSTIFICAITON FOR THAT TREATMENT. Really funny! Do you think so? In the daily life, the author may say: should not take that the treament.
How to attack this conclusion! If you do not take that treatment, you will loss even more than the expense required of that treatment due to strokes and heart disease.
A