Each of two drugs, S and T, greatly reduces the effects of potentially fatal heart attacks if given as soon as possible after the attack begins, but a trial has shown that use of drug T instead of drug S would prevent death in one additional case out of 120. Drug T, however, costs $2,000 more per treatment than drug S. Therefore society is presented with a stark policy decision: whether or not to pay the $240,000 it would cost to use drug T in order to save one additional patient.
Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument relies?
Ask a simple question - What would make society choose T over S when both are equally effective?
There must be an advantage based on one parameter that the society is not able to figure out yet.
(A) Drug S has certain
side effects not shared by drug T. - WRONG. Offtrack and irrelevant.
(B) Drug T is much newer than drug S, and had far higher development costs. - WRONG. True but irrelevant.
(C) After a heart attack, drug T remains relatively effective if given at a time at which
drug S is no longer effective. - WRONG. Yes that's the reason behind society's dilemma to choose T over S but instead of going for a balanced buy between T and S it is going for only T. But it doesn't gives anything about that additional case where T is effective.
(D) There is no quick, practical, and relatively inexpensive way of telling for any individual case whether drug S will be as effective as drug T. - CORRECT. Had there been a way to differentiate that case then the dilemma would not have been there.
(E) Drug T works significantly
faster than drug S. - WRONG. They both are effective whether one is faster than other does not matter.
Answer D.