gmatophobia wrote:
The evidence of the last 50 years in this country shows how unlikely it is that the cost of treating any particular disease in the population at large will fall merely because of improvements in medical technology. For while medical technology advanced tremendously during that time, annual overall spending on disease treatment also rose dramatically.
The argument is vulnerable to challenge on the grounds that it fails to take into account the possibility of change in each of the following EXCEPT
A. the average age of the population
B. the value of money as a result of inflation
C. the size of the population
D. the number of medical researchers
E. the types of disease prevalent in the population
The author's argument is that in the last 50 years, tech has improved vastly. But overall cost of "disease treatment" in the country (what the country spends on disease treatment each year) has also increased vastly. Say the cost was 10 Million 50 years ago and now it is 1 Billion.
Your first thought might be that this is such a wild argument. For me to make a meaningful comparison between the two years, I need to take many factors into account and hold them steady in both years. For example,
I need to compare the per person cost of treatment for a person of a particular age (cost of treatment for the same disease could be higher for an old person) for a particular disease at, say, the present value of the currency. Then the question stem makes sense. The argument fails to take into account all the following (4 things) EXCEPT.
A. the average age of the populationIn 50 years, the average age of the population could have increased a lot leading to many older people falling sick severly and hence overall increase in cost. As we discussed above, this needs to be taken into account.
B. the value of money as a result of inflationAs we discussed, the value of the currency has to be held constant in the comparison. If I say that 10 years ago, bread cost $2 and now it costs $5, that is not a meaningful comparison. Because of inflation, perhaps the $2 of 10 years ago is equal to $4. Perhaps the increase in cost of bread is of $1 only in real value of money terms.
C. the size of the populationAs we said, we need to compare the cost per person. If the population today is twice of what it was 50 years ago, the total cost of treatment would be higher.
D. the number of medical researchersThe number of medical researchers doesn't matter. If there were more, and hence the cost of treatment increased, it just goes to show the author's point - that no matter how much you keep advancing tech, the cost doesn't decrease. The reason the cost doesn't decrease is irrelevant - it could be more researchers, more high-end equipment or whatever else.
Our question is - Is the author's argument valid? Is it true that no matter how much tech advancement happens, the cost of treatment does not decrease?
E. the types of disease prevalent in the population What if today the type of diseases prevalent are far more complicated than 50 years ago? As we said, we need to compare for one particular disease. Its cost of treatment 50 years ago vs today. That would tell us the difference tech has made.
Answer (D)