Assumption

[Beatrice Michael]

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 health care
professionals, the costs of which tend to increase more rapidly than do those of other elements of the program.






Hi

Can anyone tell me here vvhat should the assumption

Vvill it be right if I say the assumption is

1) A person can fall only once therefor the cost = 11000
Cost of treatment =12500 therefore the cost is higher and cannot be justified

or

2) After a person falls there vvill be no further cost becuase of the damage caused by the fall hence the cost of treatment is greater and cannot be justfied

just vvant to knovv the ansvver if I am thinking right

Please experts do reply


OA: C

[jnelson0612]

Hi

Can anyone tell me here vvhat should the assumption

Vvill it be right if I say the assumption is

1) A person can fall only once therefor the cost = 11000
Cost of treatment =12500 therefore the cost is higher and cannot be justified

or

2) After a person falls there vvill be no further cost becuase of the damage caused by the fall hence the cost of treatment is greater and cannot be justfied

just vvant to knovv the ansvver if I am thinking right

Please experts do reply


OA: C

Well, I'd say closer to your second assumption. Let's break it down:
Conclusion: The therapeutic treatment program that will significantly prevent the possibility of falls cannot be justified.
WHY?
Premise: The therapeutic treatment program costs $12,500, versus emergency treatment costs of $11,500 when someone falls.

Okay, so the argument is saying that we can save $1000 by not preventing falls since emergency treatment costs that much less than prevention.

What is the author assuming? That there are no costs other than those needed for *emergency* treatment. Note the word "emergency"; it just seems likely that there will be other treatment costs besides the initial ones for a fall. Notice how C really attacks that assumption.

[Beatrice Michael]

Sure Thankyou that makes more sense the word emergency i did not pay heed to

Thanks :)

Hi

Can anyone tell me here vvhat should the assumption

Vvill it be right if I say the assumption is

1) A person can fall only once therefor the cost = 11000
Cost of treatment =12500 therefore the cost is higher and cannot be justified

or

2) After a person falls there vvill be no further cost becuase of the damage caused by the fall hence the cost of treatment is greater and cannot be justfied

just vvant to knovv the ansvver if I am thinking right

Please experts do reply


OA: C

Well, I'd say closer to your second assumption. Let's break it down:
Conclusion: The therapeutic treatment program that will significantly prevent the possibility of falls cannot be justified.
WHY?
Premise: The therapeutic treatment program costs $12,500, versus emergency treatment costs of $11,500 when someone falls.

Okay, so the argument is saying that we can save $1000 by not preventing falls since emergency treatment costs that much less than prevention.

What is the author assuming? That there are no costs other than those needed for *emergency* treatment. Note the word "emergency"; it just seems likely that there will be other treatment costs besides the initial ones for a fall. Notice how C really attacks that assumption.

[tim]

:)

[XiaX387]

Anything that will make the option to use the $11,000 emergency service more expensive will weaken the conclusion.

[tim]

Please let us know if you have a question on this one.