Advocates insist that health savings accounts are an efficient method

Question

Advocates insist that health savings accounts are an efficient method to reduce medical expenses. However, widespread adoption of these accounts will soon undermine the public’s health. One reason for this is that most people will be reluctant to deplete their accounts to pay for regular preventive examinations, so that in many cases a serious illness will go undetected until it is far advanced. Another reason is that poor people, who will not be able to afford health savings accounts, will no longer receive vaccinations against infectious diseases.

The statements above, if true, most support which of the following?

(A) Wealthy individuals will not be affected negatively by health savings accounts. 
(B) Private health insurance will no longer be available. 
(C) Most diseases are detected during regular preventive examinations. 
(D) Some people without health savings accounts are likely to contract infectious diseases. 
(E) The causal relationship between an individual’s health and that person’s medical care has been adequately documented.

souvik101990 · Accepted Answer

Advocates insist that health savings accounts are an efficient method to reduce medical expenses. However, widespread adoption of these accounts will soon undermine the public’s health. One reason for this is that most people will be reluctant to deplete their accounts to pay for regular preventive examinations, so that in many cases a serious illness will go undetected until it is far advanced. Another reason is that poor people, who will not be able to afford health savings accounts, will no longer receive vaccinations against infectious diseases.

The statements above, if true, most support which of the following?

A. Wealthy individuals will not be affected negatively by health savings accounts.
B. Private health insurance will no longer be available.
C. Most diseases are detected during regular preventive examinations.
D. Some people without health savings accounts are likely to contract infectious diseases.
E. The causal relationship between an individual’s health and that person’s medical care has been adequately documented.

OE:

The passage states that health savings accounts will undermine the health of the public because people will not use them for preventive care. Furthermore, people who cannot afford them will not be able to receive even basic care such as vaccinations. The correct answer will be a conclusion that can be supported solely by the facts stated in the argument, without relying on outside information or additional assumptions.

(A) The argument does not provide enough information to conclude that wealthy individuals will not be affected negatively by health savings accounts. The argument never specifically mentions wealthy individuals, just people in general.

(B) The argument does not provide enough information to conclude that private health insurance will no longer be available. In fact, private health insurance is never mentioned.

(C) The author argues that people will not get regular preventive examinations, and will therefore not receive medical attention until diseases are advanced. This logic, even if true, does not allow us to conclude that most diseases are detected during regular preventive examinations.

(D)    CORRECT   . The argument states that "poor people, who will not be able to afford health savings accounts, will no longer receive vaccinations". Based on this statement, it is reasonable to conclude that some people without health savings are likely to contract infectious diseases.

(E) The argument does not provide enough information to conclude that the causal relationship between an individual's health and that person’s medical care has been adequately documented. In fact, neither the link between medical care and health nor documentation of such a link is directly discussed.

nifoui · Answer

OA: D

This is an inference question, the correct answer choice will be based only on facts stated in the stimulus. We should not infer too much.

a) Wealthy individuals will not be affected negatively by health savings accounts.  While the argument talks about poor people, it does not necessarily differentiate between average and wealthy - OUT OF SCOPE 
b) Private health insurance will no longer be available.  Never talks about private health insurance - OUT OF SCOPE 
c) Most diseases are detected during regular preventive examinations.  The argument says that if no preventive test are run, some serious illness will not be detected early enough, but we cannot infer with this information that most disease are detected during regular regular preventive examinations - TOO STRONG 
d) Some people without health savings accounts are likely to contract infectious diseases.  The argument states that poor people will not have a health savings account and will not get vaccinations against infectious diseases, therefore SOME people are likely to contract infectious diseases as they are not protected against it - CORRECT ANSWER 
e) The causal relationship between an individual’s health and that person’s medical care has been adequately documented.  Never refers to documentation of one's medical care - OUT OF SCOPE

abhijit_sen · Answer

IMO D.
passage says "poor people, who will not be able to afford health savings accounts, will no longer receive vaccinations against infectious diseases"
Maybe likely that Some of them might receive the infectious disease.

argha · Answer

Hi,

Need expert's attention:

The conclusion states that  widespread adoption  will undermine public health. However, how is the 2nd premise(poor people not being able to afford health savings accounts related to the conclusion? Not being able to afford is the opposite of adoption.

I would have been convinced if the conclusion stated that widespread dependence(instead of adoption) on health savings accounts will undermine public health.

Look forward to some explanation.

Regards

Argha

plumber250 · Answer

Hi Argha,

Interesting question you raise, and not sure if I qualify as expert, but this is what I think:

The key is that  widespread  does not mean  all

The second premise (about the poor people being unable to afford vacinations) is still valid, because as more (wealthy) people pay into their own savings accounts, rather than the alternative (public health care), then there is less money to cover the poor.

So many people taking up (widespread) will affect those unable to pay themselves.

So it all works...

Does that make sense...

James

sammervash · Answer

Type: inference

Claim (later disputed): Advocates insist that health savings accounts are an efficient method to reduce medical expenses.
Conclusion: Widespread adoption of these accounts will soon undermine the public’s health.
Premise 1: Most people will be reluctant to deplete their accounts to pay for regular preventive examinations, so that in many cases a serious illness will go undetected until it is far advanced. 
Premise 2: Poor people, who will not be able to afford health savings accounts, will no longer receive vaccinations against infectious diseases.

(A) Wealthy individuals will not be affected negatively by health savings accounts. 
(B) Private health insurance will no longer be available. 
(C) Most diseases are detected during regular preventive examinations. 
(D) Some people without health savings accounts are likely to contract infectious diseases. 
(E) The causal relationship between an individual’s health and that person’s medical care has been adequately documented.

I chose D because it is supported by the argument, which states: "Either because they will not want to use their account, or they cannot afford it, many people will not take preventative exams or vaccinations. Both preventative exams and vaccinations help stop illnesses from occurring. Thus, public health is undermined."

Most people seem torn between C and D.

I believe C is incorrect because it is making an unwarranted assumption, like many before me have stated -- nothing in the argument tells us that most diseases are detected during preventative examinations, just that many serious illnesses may go undetected. Even if C said "most serious illnesses are detected during exams", it would still be an assumption.

If you don't mind me commenting: I agree with you. We cannot infer about what wealthy people are doing and how that affects others. Nothing in the argument sheds light on this.

The argument is just saying "adoption" to mean that many places will now use this type of health provision, and thus, people will end up using it. I don't think it means to say that people will be adopting it, as if they are choosing to; just that it will be adopted, and many people will end up having to use it -- we must accept that people are using the account (regardless of adoption or dependance), simply because this is given in the argument.

The 2nd premise is used to support the conclusion to say that if this account is adopted, then poor people will not be able to afford it, and thus, cannot pay for vaccinations -- if they cannot be vaccinated, they are more susceptible to disease, and thus, public health has been undermined in this way. Why poor people cannot afford it is not stated; all we know is that many people will have trouble financing medical procedures based on the way this account works. Hope that clears things up!

vad3tha · Answer

Between C and D. C is wrong because it is said a serious illness will go undetected without preventive exams, it does not necessarily infer that most diseases ( regular not serious illness) will be detected during those exams. Causation: not A --> not B , we cannot assume A --> B

killthegmatavi · Answer

Advocates insist that health savings accounts are an efficient method to reduce medical expenses. However, widespread adoption of these accounts will soon undermine the public’s health. One reason for this is that most people will be reluctant to deplete their accounts to pay for regular preventive examinations, so that in many cases a serious illness will go undetected until it is far advanced. Another reason is that poor people, who will not be able to afford health savings accounts, will no longer receive vaccinations against infectious diseases.

The statements above, if true, most support which of the following?

A. Wealthy individuals will not be affected negatively by health savings accounts.
B. Private health insurance will no longer be available.
C. Most diseases are detected during regular preventive examinations.
D. Some people without health savings accounts are likely to contract infectious diseases.
E. The causal relationship between an individual’s health and that person’s medical care has been adequately documented.

Most support is indicating of inference question, something that must be true from the given passage
A> No mention of wealthy individuals. So out of scope answer
B> Cannot comment on private health insurance as no information is given about it. So out of scope answer.
C> Most diseases are detected during regular preventive examination. 
Mentioned that in many cases a serious illness wil go undetected until it is far advanced. Many cases doesnot justifies the statement related to most diseases, hence this option is discarded.
 D>Some people without health savings accounts are likely to contract infectious disease. 
Mentioned that poor people, who will not be able to afford health savings accounts will no longer receive vaccinations against infectious disease. 
States that poor people will not be able to afford health savings account==>> hence not receive vaccinations against infectious disease==>> likely to contract infectious disease 
Correct
E>The casual relationship has been properly documented: This cannot be verified through the information present in the passage

Skywalker18 · Answer

Advocates insist that health savings accounts are an efficient method to reduce medical expenses. However, widespread adoption of these accounts will soon undermine the public’s health. One reason for this is that most people will be reluctant to deplete their accounts to pay for regular preventive examinations, so that in many cases a serious illness will go undetected until it is far advanced. Another reason is that poor people, who will not be able to afford health savings accounts, will no longer receive vaccinations against infectious diseases.

Type - Inference

The statements above, if true, most support which of the following?

A. Wealthy individuals will not be affected negatively by health savings accounts. - May be true but need not be true
B. Private health insurance will no longer be available. - Out of scope 
C. Most diseases are detected during regular preventive examinations. - Most is too strong a word here . At least one or some will be better
D. Some people without health savings accounts are likely to contract infectious diseases. - poor people, who will not be able to afford health savings accounts, will no longer receive vaccinations against infectious diseases. 
E. The causal relationship between an individual’s health and that person’s medical care has been adequately documented. - Irrelevant

Answer D

chesstitans · Answer

this is a rare inference question, because the question has the argument structure.
Except D, all options are out of scope, and D quite connects with the argument.
"reluctant to deplete their (saving) accounts for their medical expenses" = no saving accounts in D

Kezia9 · Answer

Advocates insist that health savings accounts are an efficient method to reduce medical expenses. However, widespread adoption of these accounts will soon undermine the public’s health. One reason for this is that most people will be reluctant to deplete their accounts to pay for regular preventive examinations, so that in many cases a serious illness will go undetected until it is far advanced. Another reason is that poor people, who will not be able to afford health savings accounts, will no longer receive vaccinations against infectious diseases.

The statements above, if true, most support which of the following?

a) Wealthy individuals will not be affected negatively by health savings accounts. 
 ("most people will be reluctant to deplete their accounts to pay for regular preventive examinations" : points to the fact that this claim is not true)

b) Private health insurance will no longer be available. 
 ("widespread adoption of these accounts will soon undermine the public’s health": this makes the claim in b false)

c) Most diseases are detected during regular preventive examinations. 
 Thugh passage states that "in many cases a serious illness will go undetected" it does not support this as a fact

d) Some people without health savings accounts are likely to contract infectious diseases. 
 Another reason is that poor people, who will not be able to afford health savings accounts, will no longer receive vaccinations against infectious diseases. Sounds correct .

e) The causal relationship between an individual’s health and that person’s medical care has been adequately documented.
 (I think this is out of scope for the passage)

Hi,

I eliminated C as I felt it was extreme....Most diseases....Is my reasonong correct???

TarunKumar1234 · Answer

The statements above, if true, most support which of the following?

(A) Wealthy individuals will not be affected negatively by health savings accounts. -> There is no wealthy individuals mentioned in the argument. Incorrect.
(B) Private health insurance will no longer be available. -> It is also not talked about. Incorrect.
(C) Most diseases are detected during regular preventive examinations. -> It is just reverse of what argument says. Incorrect.
(D) Some people without health savings accounts are likely to contract infectious diseases. -> Last line of the argument, gives a hint for it. Let's keep it.
(E) The causal relationship between an individual’s health and that person’s medical care has been adequately documented. -> Irrelevant.

So, I think D.

ak2121 · Answer

but the paragraph says ' One reason for this is that most
people will be reluctant to deplete their accounts to pay for regular preventive examinations,' and why would wealthy people be reluctant to spend money on their health because they have enough money to do both, health savings acc and medical examinations.
can you pls help?

Stanindaw · Answer

Can somebody please help me on this:
My thinking:
“..in MANY cases a serious disease will go undetected” implies
a) many cases one or two diseases
OR
b) many cases many diseases

If i eliminate the case (a) here, will the option c be correct then?

Posted from my mobile device

Carcass · Answer

In many cases = we do not know the exact absolute number and of this number, MANY could be several cases even though when we say "MANY CASES" is it not > 50% of them

The answer to your question is "MANY cases " , for example, 30 out of 100.

30 people out of 100 on ONE disease we are considering

I hope now is clear

ViharSaladi · Answer

Premise: poor people will no longer receive vaccinations against infectious diseases, if they adopt health savings account.

How option D is correct? Premise is exclusively about poor people who adopt health savings account. It doesn't mention anything about people without these accounts.

Could some expert please explain?  bb   Bunuel

bb · Answer

Hi. This is a hard critical reasoning question so you have to expect it to be hard and not fit in the usual patterns of simple critical reasoning. You want to move onto the hard critical reasoning questions after you’ve mastered easy and medium ones. You can actually get pretty good with medium and easy ones but hard critical reasoning questions will always challenge you and the correct answer all depend on small little details and sometimes just one word.

For example: 
“ Another reason is that poor people…” as you can see from this statement, it says another reason. This indicates that this is not the main reason but just one more. So most likely the correct answer will not be focused on this statement. Again in hard CR questions many things are possible but most likely the OA will not focus on just a tangent.

So… your statement appears to be too limited in scope because the main focus of the premise and argument has nothing to do with poor people. It is mostly about health savings plans and poor people are just a part of it but not the entirety of it. Does that make sense?

Posted from my mobile device

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

Advocates insist that health savings accounts are an efficient method

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

Advocates insist that health savings accounts are an efficient method

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