Critical Reasoning

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.

IMO C

IMO C

Not quite convinced about the answer. It is quite possible that only one disease can be detected initially. This option talks of "MOST" , that's a bit tricky.

I had also initially thought it was C but the correct ans is not that. The ans is D. Can some one pls help me understand why D is preferred to C?

Ans D

This is a rehash of the last sentence.

IMO D
Why not C?
c) Most diseases are detected during regular preventive examinations.
Premise: Regular preventive examinations, so that in many cases a serious illness will go
undetected until it is far advanced
It talks about a serious illness can be detected using preventive examinations not many serious illness can be detected.

D)Some people without health savings accounts are likely to contract infectious diseases.
Yes true, because some people without health savings accounts might not "receive vaccinations against infectious diseases" so it is possible that they will contract infectious diseases. A small logical leap in this answer but better than all other answers.

am still not convinced with the answer.
why is it D?

The question is about finding the conclusion, which supports the premises of the argument. If poor people, who will not be able to afford health savings accounts, will no longer receive vaccinations against infectious diseases then Some people (without health savings accounts) are likely to contract infectious diseases.

Hope my explanation is convincing!!!

sk1 wrote: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.

Keep your eyes on the prize here. Your goal is to find an answer choice with a conclusion that can logically be reached from these premises. The argument says that people will not pay for preventative examinations, so in many cases a serious illness will go undetected. This only talks about "serious" illnesses, and uses "many cases" - really not strong enough to reach the conclusion that most diseases are detectable by exams. From the fact that a serious illness such as colon cancer will go unnoticed because people won't get examined, can you really learn that MOST diseases out there are detected by preventative examinations (including non-serious diseases such as the common cold, or the flu)? C might be true, but is simply not a conclusion that can be reached from THIS argument.

The reason C is dangerous because it has the ring of truth as an assumption - in order to predict that people if people will not use preventative examinations, diseases will go unnoticed, we have to assume that preventative exams actually do detect diseases. But that is an assumption behind the argument, not a conclusion reached based on the argument, and even then C is too extreme with the use of "most" - I don't have to assume that MOST diseases are detectable, only that SOME diseases are detectable.

Could anybody say that why E is not the answer??

Why is not the answer?? Could anybody just explain??