Limited research indicates that therapeutic intervention before

Question

Limited research indicates that therapeutic intervention before the onset of mental disorders can mitigate factors identified as major contributors to them. But a much more comprehensive research program is needed to verify these results and allow for the design of specific health care measures. Thus, in order to explore a potential means of cost-effectively helping people prone to mental disorders, we should increase funding for intervention research.

Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?

(A) Most minor mental disorders are more expensive to treat than other minor health problems.
(B) Prevention research can be coordinated by drawing together geneticists, neurologists, and behavioral scientists.
(C) Reducing known risk factors for mental disorders is relatively inexpensive compared to the long-term treatment required.
(D) Current funding for intervention research is now higher than it has ever been before.
(E) Once a mental disorder disappears, there is a fair chance that it will recur, given that complete cures are rare.

sachi-in · Answer

Conclusion: In order to explore a potential means of cost-effectively helping people prone to mental disorders we need to increase research on therapeutic intervention

Unstated assumption: therapeutic intervention cheaper than the usual treatment

To strengthen we may support either the unstated assumption or support the premise ( using an alternate unstated assumption )

A properly strengthens our assumption rest are irrelevant

Posted from my mobile device

okHedwig · Answer

Hi, 
Why is the ans C and not A?
Since C already states that Reducing known risk factors for mental disorders is relatively inexpensive compared to the long-term treatment required, then there is no need for increasing funding for intervention research since mitigating risk factors is already inexpensive.

I think only A justifies strengthening the conclusion. Please explain.

DmitryFarberMPrep · Answer

The author is arguing that if we want to help people with mental disorders in a cost-effective way, we should invest in more research on possible interventions that cut down risk factors. This relies on the assumption that reducing these risk factors would be a more cost-effective method than any alternative. If it were cheaper to wait until the disorders manifested and then trat them, then it's not clear that this preventative approach would be cost-effective. (It still might be a good thing to prevent problems before they occur, but that doesn't tell us about cost.)

A, on the other hand, simply compares a subset of mental disorders to other kinds of health problems. This does nothing for us, since the argument is only about mental disorders. We don't need to know how they compare in cost to other kinds of problems. As an analogy, if I propose a way to save money on vacations in Japan, it doesn't help to know whether trips to Japan are cheaper or more expensive than trips elsewhere. I just want to know if ONE way of visiting Japan is a better value than ANOTHER.

Limited research indicates that therapeutic intervention before

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

Limited research indicates that therapeutic intervention before

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