Logical reasoning PrepTest 118 · Section 3 · Question 19

Incorrect. While this answer might provide one explanation for the increased cost—effectiveness of preventive medicine, it's not the only explanation, so this answer doesn't have to be true.

Incorrect. This specific ratio of cost reduction doesn't need to hold for the argument to work. As long as increased teaching of preventive medicine increases cost—effectiveness, it doesn't matter if it's 1 hour:10% or 2 hours:5%.

Incorrect. The Editorial's conclusion could recommend shifting hours from curative medicine to preventive medicine as much as adding in more hours to the curriculum to teach the latter, so this answer isn't required for the argument to hold.

Incorrect. This answer is about an improvement in curative techniques, which is out of scope of the stimulus. The stimulus is about the time spent teaching these techniques, not the techniques themselves.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Necessary Premise

Stimulus Summary:
Preventive medicine is cheaper than curative medicine
Med schools teach the latter at a 10:1 ratio to the former
Therefore
(1) Goal — Make medicine more cost—effective
(2) Approach — Spend more time teaching preventive medicine

Answer Anticipation:
When dealing with any flaw—based question, there are two methods that are particularly useful. The first is to identify common elements that lead to flawed logic. The second is to work backwards from the conclusion to find any gaps or mismatched terms.

Here, we get two primary elements that we can work from that suggest certain flaws! The first is that the argument is based on comparisons—arguments frequently leave out relevant points of comparison when relying on these comparisons. The second is the conditional conclusion, which specifically mentions a goal—cutting down on medical costs.

With these in mind, we can start with the conclusion and work backwards. The conclusion sets out a goal of making medicine more cost—effective, and the premises do offer a way to do so—teach in a way that increases the use of preventive medicine compared to curative medicine, since the latter is much more expensive. The approach recommended is to spend more time teaching preventive medicine, since—according to the conclusion—insufficient time is spent on it.

Is there support for that contention? What the stimulus does establish about the amount of time spent teaching it is that it's about 10% of the time spent on curative medicine. Does that prove that the amount of time to do so is insufficient? We don't know! What is a sufficient amount of time to teach preventive medicine?

The argument assumes that such a small percentage of time spent teaching preventive medicine isn't enough time teaching it, but it could be that preventive medicine is much easier to teach. It could just involve helping people make healthy life choices, and the tough part of medicine is figuring out and curing problems after they happen. As such, spending more time teaching preventive medicine might not do anything, as there might not be anything extra to teach!

The argument assumes that the current ratio of time spent on curative vs. preventive medicine means that insufficient time is spent teaching the latter, so let's find an answer stating that.

Answer Explanation:
This answer establishes that the current ratio of time spent teaching preventive vs. curative medicine isn't hitting the amount of time required to teach the former, which justifies the conclusion that more time should be spent on it. If the time required to teach preventive medicine is not greater than the current time allocated to it, then the argument falls apart as the time spent isn't insufficient for teaching it.

Key Takeaway:
Always be on the lookout for elements that suggest certain flaws, and then see how the concepts in the conclusion overlap with them, and where any gaps are between the concepts in the conclusion and the ones in the premises.