Treatment for hypertension forestalls certain medical expenses by prev

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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?

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

­
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)?