Treatment for hypertension forestalls certain medical expenses by prev

Question

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.

anairamitch1804 · Accepted Answer

Conclusion :- "there is no economic justification for preventive treatment for hypertension".
Weaken :- "there is economic justification for preventive treatment for hypertension"

So its structure is the following: 
- treating hypertension postpones other medical costs because it prevents heart disease 
- the money saved by treating hypertension is only 1/4 of the money needed to treat the hypertensive population 
- conclusion: there is no economic reason behind treating hypertension

So to my understanding, you save some money by preventing heart disease and strokes, but the amount you save is not big enough to cover the expenses for everyone suffering from hypertension. You have a classical case of costs and benefits and net effect: 
- costs: treatment of hyperension 
- benefits: money saved because of the preventive treatment of hypertension 
- net effect: benefits - costs --- the argument says it's not big enough to justify treating hypertension. We are looking for options that contradict this, i.e. either make benefits higher or costs lower

A is the best answer choice here because there are indeed economic losses if you do not treat hypertension. A says that untreated hypertension ---> fatal heart disease & strokes ---> economic losses not related to the medical field. So there is economic justification for treating hypertension.

B somehow supports the argument, since it contends that economies of scale would not occur should a program be instituted for the treatment of hypertension. This is actually a statement that tells us that the costs would remain the same. We are interested in a statement that says that costs will either be reduced or benefits will be increased (so that the net effect would be higher).

C is irrelevant to the argument since the argument explicitly mentions economic justifications and we should be concerned with that. I know it's the more "humane" option, but you need to put your feelings aside for the moment!

D is another option that concerns costs, specifically it mentions their increase. Again, this is contrary to what we're looking for.

E says that benefits of preventive measures < costs of preventive measures. This has a negative impact on the net effect, so E actually strengthens the argument.

sondenso · Answer

I really like the way Gmac make reasoning! It is really close to life! :lol:

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

Yahsek · Answer

A. "Large economic losses of other sorts" weakens the conclusion that "there is no economic justification for preventive treatment for hypertension".

kkalyan · Answer

Hi can you tell me how this line 'Large economic losses of other sorts' weaken the stated conclusion

rrsnathan · Answer

Only A and D looks good for me.

D is lack of information so i went with A

Experts please advise if i am right.

Thanks in advance,
Rrsnathan

cssk · Answer

Idea here is to weaken the conclusion that there is no economic justification for preventive treatment for hypertension. Choice A tells though medical expenditures are insignificant, many fatal strokes and heart attacks cause other severe economic losses. Hence preventive treatment for hypertension is economically justified.

yunbao · Answer

The "preventive" in the preventive treatment for hypertension really confuses me. If there is no such "preventive", the question is quite straightforward. Why information does "preventive" give in this context?

himanshurajawat · Answer

The answer is 'A'

A: Correct. We need an option that says there is economic justification for the treatment of hypertension. A says although there is insignificant medical expenditures, there is large economic losses of other sorts. So there is cost benefit in treatment of hypertension.
B: Incorrect. It strengthens the conclusions. It says cost, per patient will not decrease even if the economies of scale is large.
C: Incorrect. Out of scope.
D: Incorrect. It does nothing to weaken the conclusion. Since early diagnosis are costly, this will contribute more to why there is no economic justification for the treatment.
E: Incorrect. It strengthens the conclusion.

akbgmatter · Answer

Conclusion: Therefore, there is no economic justification for preventive treatment for hypertension.

(A) The many fatal stroke and heart attacks resulting from untreated hypertension cause insignificant medical expenditures but large economic losses of other sorts.
Strong choice - attacks conclusion; hold
(B) The cost, per patient, of preventive treatment for hypertension would remain constant even if such treatment were instituted on a large scale.
Irrelevant; eliminate
(C) In matters of health care, economic considerations should ideally not be dominant.
Irrelevant; eliminate
(D) Effective prevention presupposes early diagnosis, and programs to ensure early diagnosis are costly.
Strengthens; eliminate
(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.
Irrelevant; eliminate

A prevails

ArnauG · Answer

The passage argues that there is no economic justification for preventive treatment for hypertension, despite the fact that it can prevent strokes and heart disease and save on medical expenses. The conclusion is based on the claim that the money saved from preventing strokes and heart disease is only a quarter of the total expenditures required to treat the hypertensive population. We need to find the option that weakens this conclusion the most. Let's examine each choice:

(A) The many fatal stroke and heart attacks resulting from untreated hypertension cause insignificant medical expenditures but large economic losses of other sorts.
This option suggests that while the medical expenditures saved from preventive treatment may be insignificant, there are other significant economic losses associated with fatal strokes and heart attacks resulting from untreated hypertension. This weakens the conclusion by pointing out that the economic impact goes beyond just medical expenses.

(B) The cost, per patient, of preventive treatment for hypertension would remain constant even if such treatment were instituted on a large scale.
This option doesn't directly address the conclusion or the economic justification for preventive treatment. It focuses on the cost per patient, which is not directly related to the argument being made.

(C) In matters of health care, economic considerations should ideally not be dominant.
This option doesn't directly weaken the conclusion. It introduces a general principle that economic considerations should not dominate healthcare decisions but doesn't provide specific evidence or reasoning to counter the argument.

(D) Effective prevention presupposes early diagnosis, and programs to ensure early diagnosis are costly.
This option suggests that effective prevention of hypertension requires early diagnosis, which in turn requires costly programs. If early diagnosis is costly, it implies that preventive treatment may be more economically justifiable since it could potentially save on the expenses associated with late-stage treatments. This weakens the conclusion by introducing a potential counterargument.

(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.
This option suggests that while preventive health measures may lead to savings in medical resources, there are other preventive measures that result in net losses. It doesn't directly address the economic justification for preventive treatment for hypertension discussed in the passage.

Based on the analysis, the option that most damages the conclusion is (A) – "The many fatal stroke and heart attacks resulting from untreated hypertension cause insignificant medical expenditures but large economic losses of other sorts." By highlighting the significant economic losses associated with fatal strokes and heart attacks, it weakens the conclusion that there is no economic justification for preventive treatment for hypertension based solely on medical expense savings.

agrasan · Answer

Hi  GMATNinja   KarishmaB ,

I wanted to make sure if we can eliminate Option E based on the following reasons:
1) net savings are talked about in the context of "medical resources", not in "medical expenses"
2) It is not easy to decipher what is meant by "certain other measures"
3) The option doesn't provide any color on the economic justification, it repeats that net savings is low (the argument already says a person saves 25% only).

Please let me know if I am wrong in this thinking. Also, did I over-analyze bullet 3)?

VerbalBot · Answer

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

Treatment for hypertension forestalls certain medical expenses by prev

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

Treatment for hypertension forestalls certain medical expenses by prev

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