Critical Reasoning

Economist: On average, the emergency treatment for an elderly person for injuries resulting from a fall costs $11,000. A new therapeutic program can significantly reduce an elderly person's chances of falling. Though obviously desirable for many reasons, this treatment program will cost $12,500 and thus cannot be justified.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the conclusion of the argument?

a)Among elderly people who had followed the program for only a few months, the number of serious falls reported was higher than it was for people who had followed the program for its recommended minimum length of one year.

b)Falls resulting in serious injuries are less common among elderly people living in nursing homes than they are among elderly people who live alone at home.

c)A frequent result of injuries sustained in falls is long-term pain, medication for which is not counted
among the average per-person costs of emergency treatment for elderly people's injuries from such falls.

d)The new therapeutic program focuses on therapies other than medication, since overmedication can cause disorientation and hence increase the likelihood that
an elderly person will have a serious fall.
e)A significant portion of the cost of the new therapeutic program is represented by regular visits by healthcare professionals, the cost of which tend to increase more rapidly than do those of other elements of the program.

IMO C.

OA please.

IMO C

IMO C

IMO C.

OA?

causal relation, another cause

D weakens by saying that 12500 give more benifit although more expensive.

IMO C

Conclusion: Alternate therapeutic treatment not justified

Premise/ Reason: Cost of therapeutic treatment is more than cost of treating falls

Option C weakens the premise and directly negates it.

Hence the conclusion is weakened as the the justification for the conclusion has been undermined.


OA pls.

Cheers
TJ

The OA is C. Found it in another forum.

It is C only

I would go with option C as the correct option