by maryadkins Sat May 05, 2012 2:57 pm
The conclusion here is the first sentence: there isn't a way to reduce healthcare costs in the current system. Why? Because everybody just shifts costs onto each other.
We're then given an example of 1980s reforms, specifically government health-care insurance cuts.
(C) captures this strategy by noting that the analogy to the '80s reforms is meant to illustrate parties shifting costs to each other. "Example" is like "analogy" because it's a comparison to another instance that illustrates the same phenomenon.
(A) misconstrues the argument. The argument isn't about health-care reimbursement or specifically shifting the cost to the patient; it's about shifting costs all around.
(B) is incorrect. This isn't about fraudulent intent.
(D) is incorrect because although the conclusion is to deny the possibility of a solution, the author doesn't disparage all the possible alternates. He makes one argument and backs it up with any example.
(E) is incorrect because it's the opposite of what we're looking for. Cooperation is not feasible; that's the point.
I hope this clarifies for you!