Please explain

The argument's conclusion is: "Coherent solutions for the problem of reducing health care costs cannot be found within the current piecemeal system of paying these costs." Why? We are told that the system gives health care providers and insurers every incentive to shift the costs of treating illness onto each other or any other party. The argument further explains the connection between the premise and conclusion by introducing the similarities in the various reforms of the 1980s. Just like the current piecemeal system of health care, in the 1980s if you pushed in on one part of this "pliable spending balloon an equally expensive bulge pops up elsewhere." Thus, the argument proceeds by employing an analogy, i.e. a comparison between two things, to characterize interrelationships, i.e. answer choice (C). Hope that was helpful! Please let us know if you have any other questions.

Why is A incorrect?

@Shiyi-Zhang, Great question. (A) says "showing that shifting costs onto the patient contradicts the premise of health care reimbursement." The argument in the stimulus never discusses health care reimbursement. Since it isn't discussed, there is no way that the argument contradicts something that it never mentioned. Does this make sense? Let us know if you have any other questions!

Can an example really be an analogy? If I said, "car accidents are dangerous. I broke my neck in one." Is that really employing an analogy?