Medical education in the US (Source 700_800 Practice ?s)

This topic has expert replies
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 516
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2009 3:22 pm
Thanked: 112 times
Followed by:13 members
Medical education in the United States has focused almost exclusively on curative medicine, while preventive care
has been given scant attention. This is misguided. Medical schools should invest as much time in teaching their
students how to prevent illness as in teaching them how to cure it. Which of the following, if true, most strengthens
the argument above?

A) Many contagious diseases can be prevented with vaccines.
B) In 1988, for every three cents the United States spent on prevention, it spent 97 cents on curative treatment.
C) The number of students enrolled in medical school is the highest it has ever been.
D) More people die each year from disease than from accidental causes.
E) As the population grows, the number of doctors in certain specialties has not been keeping pace.

OA after some discussion.

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 63
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 8:25 pm
Thanked: 3 times

by Calvin123 » Tue May 17, 2011 10:31 pm
smackmartine wrote:Medical education in the United States has focused almost exclusively on curative medicine, while preventive care
has been given scant attention. This is misguided. Medical schools should invest as much time in teaching their
students how to prevent illness as in teaching them how to cure it. Which of the following, if true, most strengthens
the argument above?

A) Many contagious diseases can be prevented with vaccines.
Correct: Vaccines are prevention not a cure. If many diseases can be prevented by vaccines then medical school should teach prevention as well. Make sense.
B) In 1988, for every three cents the United States spent on prevention, it spent 97 cents on curative treatment.
Wrong: This talks about fundings. Out of the scope.
C) The number of students enrolled in medical school is the highest it has ever been.
Wrong: Out of the scope. Author is not concerned about no of enrollments.
D) More people die each year from disease than from accidental causes.
Wrong: This doesn't strengthen the argument.
E) As the population grows, the number of doctors in certain specialties has not been keeping pace.
Wrong: Out of the scope.

OA after some discussion.
To me only A is making sense. IMO A

Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 17
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2010 2:13 am
Thanked: 1 times

by rk10 » Tue May 17, 2011 10:50 pm
+1 for A

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1101
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 7:26 am
Thanked: 47 times
Followed by:13 members
GMAT Score:640

by HSPA » Tue May 17, 2011 11:03 pm
A and B are the only contenders

I am with B. A looks more an assumption.

Shouldnt A asy - Some medicine/food "did/can" help to prevent disease by improving resistance.
First take: 640 (50M, 27V) - RC needs 300% improvement
Second take: coming soon..
Regards,
HSPA.

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 516
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2009 3:22 pm
Thanked: 112 times
Followed by:13 members

by smackmartine » Wed May 18, 2011 5:54 am
OA A

@HSPA, I agree that A and B are contenders. In fact I too selected B.

Reason is that if we can support that "Medical education in the United States has focused almost exclusively on curative medicine, while preventive care has been given scant attention", its a strengthener too.

But what I realized later was that question does not ask us to strengthen a traditional trend but conclusion. Conclusion says: "Medical schools should invest as much time in teaching their students how to prevent illness as in teaching them how to cure it."

In other words preventive treatment should be given preference over curative treatment. Only option A says vaccines prevent contagious diseases. (If this were not true there would be no benefits of preventive treatment ) .

So the lesson learnt is that we should see the question carefully to see which part of the argument is required to be strengthened.Sometimes strengthener questions ask us to support someone's claim or to support against someone's claim, leaving conclusion aside.