Any health care plan that does not cover comprehensive

[sidd.shah123]

What is the conclusion in this argument and what is the conclusion indicator?

Can this problem be solved by elimination using causality ?

Health Care Plan doesn't cover annual checkups (X) -> Risk life of members (Y)

Does A have any cause - effect relationship ...Why is A wrong?

Why is C wrong?



Any health care plan that does not cover comprehensive annual checkups is risking the lives of its members, who are unlikely to obtain care that is not covered by their health care plans, and who may have conditions that, if not detected early, are more likely to become fatal.

The argument above logically depends on which of the following assumptions?

a)Health care plans cannot save lives unless they also cover medical procedures that treat any potentially fatal conditions that are detected.

b) Many potentially lethal conditions are likely to be detected during an annual checkup.

c)Doctors who perform comprehensive annual checkups charge high fees, such that health care plan members cannot afford checkups that are not covered.

d)People who are members of health plans are more likely to have potentially fatal conditions than those who are not members of health plans.

e)People are less likely to purchase a health care plan that does not cover annual checkups, thus negatively affecting the insurers’ profitability.

[messi10]

Hi Sidd,

What is the conclusion in this argument and what is the conclusion indicator?

In my opinion, the main conclusion is:

Any health care plan that does not cover comprehensive annual checkups is risking the lives of its members

But "members" is also modified by two modifiers here. Members who:

are unlikely to obtain care that is not covered by their health care plans
may have conditions that, if not detected early, are more likely to become fatal.

These two modifiers are also a part of the conclusion as they are limiting the scope of members.

I have highlighted the boundary and extreme words in the conclusion that may or may not help in eliminating some answers. The argument is extreme in that it talks about any health plan i.e. no exceptions. It also talks about checkups that are annual and comprehensive.

In short, the claim or conclusion is that if a health insurance plan does not offer comprehensive annual checkup, it is risking the lives of the members who rely solely on their plan and who may have conditions that require early detection.

One of the assumptions that you can already draw from this is that these comprehensive annual checkups must be able to reduce/nullify those risks:

No comprehensive annual checkup -> Risk to lives
Therefore, comprehensive annual checkup -> reduce risk to lives

Also, I don't think there is a one word conclusion indicator here. But the argument is made up of one sentence only and that is the only claim being made. Do not get mechanical when looking for conclusion, be logical.

Can this problem be solved by elimination using causality ?

Health Care Plan doesn't cover annual checkups (X) -> Risk life of members (Y)

Don't think so. X-> Y but does Y->X? Does risk to lives lead to insurance companies not providing annual checkups?

Does A have any cause - effect relationship ...Why is A wrong?

Choice A talks about a different aspect of the health insurance plan. It talks about what the health insurance plan must cover in the event of a fatal condition being detected. This is irrelevant to our conclusion, which is concerned with annual checkups

Why is C wrong?

Choice C gives a reason why members cannot afford checkups not covered by their health insurance. There is some sense in this answer. Members of the insurance companies that do not offer the annual checkups also cannot go to the doctors directly because of the high cost. But this is a good answer only if we were trying to find reasons why insurance companies should offer comprehensive annual checkups. This is not what we are looking for in this argument. We want to strengthen the claim that not offering these checkups is risking lives.

Choice B offers an apt assumption. It uses the keyword "many", which is also great. If we try and negate this using LEN:

Many potentially lethal conditions are NOT likely to be detected during an annual checkup.

Our conclusion falls. So this is the correct answer in my opinion. Is this the OA?

Thanks

Sunil

[sidd.shah123]

Yes, OA is B...thanks for taking time to explain this..appreciate it

[sidd.shah123]

Hi Sidd,

Can this problem be solved by elimination using causality ?

Health Care Plan doesn't cover annual checkups (X) -> Risk life of members (Y)

Don't think so. X-> Y but does Y->X? Does risk to lives lead to insurance companies not providing annual checkups?

Sunil

Also, if X- > Y then it will be either not y -> not X

so it will be doesnt risk life of members -> health care covers annual checkups ...

[satyaking]

Hi Sidd,

What is the conclusion in this argument and what is the conclusion indicator?

In my opinion, the main conclusion is:

Any health care plan that does not cover comprehensive annual checkups is risking the lives of its members

But "members" is also modified by two modifiers here. Members who:

are unlikely to obtain care that is not covered by their health care plans
may have conditions that, if not detected early, are more likely to become fatal.

These two modifiers are also a part of the conclusion as they are limiting the scope of members.

I have highlighted the boundary and extreme words in the conclusion that may or may not help in eliminating some answers. The argument is extreme in that it talks about any health plan i.e. no exceptions. It also talks about checkups that are annual and comprehensive.

In short, the claim or conclusion is that if a health insurance plan does not offer comprehensive annual checkup, it is risking the lives of the members who rely solely on their plan and who may have conditions that require early detection.

One of the assumptions that you can already draw from this is that these comprehensive annual checkups must be able to reduce/nullify those risks:

No comprehensive annual checkup -> Risk to lives
Therefore, comprehensive annual checkup -> reduce risk to lives

Also, I don't think there is a one word conclusion indicator here. But the argument is made up of one sentence only and that is the only claim being made. Do not get mechanical when looking for conclusion, be logical.

Can this problem be solved by elimination using causality ?

Health Care Plan doesn't cover annual checkups (X) -> Risk life of members (Y)

Don't think so. X-> Y but does Y->X? Does risk to lives lead to insurance companies not providing annual checkups?

Does A have any cause - effect relationship ...Why is A wrong?

Choice A talks about a different aspect of the health insurance plan. It talks about what the health insurance plan must cover in the event of a fatal condition being detected. This is irrelevant to our conclusion, which is concerned with annual checkups

Why is C wrong?

Choice C gives a reason why members cannot afford checkups not covered by their health insurance. There is some sense in this answer. Members of the insurance companies that do not offer the annual checkups also cannot go to the doctors directly because of the high cost. But this is a good answer only if we were trying to find reasons why insurance companies should offer comprehensive annual checkups. This is not what we are looking for in this argument. We want to strengthen the claim that not offering these checkups is risking lives.

Choice B offers an apt assumption. It uses the keyword "many", which is also great. If we try and negate this using LEN:

Many potentially lethal conditions are NOT likely to be detected during an annual checkup.

Our conclusion falls. So this is the correct answer in my opinion. Is this the OA?

Thanks

Sunil

hi Sunil,

I am still having some problem with the logic. The option-B ,after using LEN, says "Many potentially lethal conditions are NOT likely to be detected during an annual checkup.", but i am concerned about those few lethal diseases which stand a chance of being detected(because MANY is not ALL ) .Thus the conclusion goes unhurt.

But option -C ,after LEN, tells that doctors are NOT charging high for annual checkups.So the members of the health pan can afford the annual checkup fees even if not covered by the plans(they may visit the doctors on personal expense). Hence, the main conclusion that plan not including that annual check up is risking the life of the members falls apart.

[messi10]

Hi Satyaking,

but i am concerned about those few lethal diseases which stand a chance of being detected (because MANY is not ALL) .Thus the conclusion goes unhurt.

I have to disagree here. While many is not all, it is still a substantial amount.

But option -C ,after LEN, tells that doctors are NOT charging high for annual checkups.So the members of the health pan can afford the annual checkup fees even if not covered by the plans(they may visit the doctors on personal expense). Hence, the main conclusion that plan not including that annual check up is risking the life of the members falls apart.

OK, the patients can afford their own checkups. But in justifying this assumption, you are making another assumption which is not supported by the argument. There is a line that says: "members, who are unlikely to obtain care that is not covered by their health care plans".
It says members are unlikely to obtain additional care. It doesn't say that cost is the reason. In fact, it does not state any reason. While cost is a strong reason to speculate, it could also be faith in the health plan. People may feel safe just because they have a health plan and not bother with getting additional checkups even if they were offered cheaply. So in order to choose this answer, we would have to assume that cost was the reason people were not willing to go for annual checkups. We also have to assume that if it were offered cheaply, people will actually bother going for it.

One more thing, in assuming choice c, you are also assuming choice b. Choice B says that those checkups are able to detect many lethal conditions. If that were not true, even choice C will be useless

Regards

Sunil

[satyaking]

Hi Satyaking,

but i am concerned about those few lethal diseases which stand a chance of being detected (because MANY is not ALL) .Thus the conclusion goes unhurt.

I have to disagree here. While many is not all, it is still a substantial amount.

But option -C ,after LEN, tells that doctors are NOT charging high for annual checkups.So the members of the health pan can afford the annual checkup fees even if not covered by the plans(they may visit the doctors on personal expense). Hence, the main conclusion that plan not including that annual check up is risking the life of the members falls apart.

OK, the patients can afford their own checkups. But in justifying this assumption, you are making another assumption which is not supported by the argument. There is a line that says: "members, who are unlikely to obtain care that is not covered by their health care plans".
It says members are unlikely to obtain additional care. It doesn't say that cost is the reason. In fact, it does not state any reason. While cost is a strong reason to speculate, it could also be faith in the health plan. People may feel safe just because they have a health plan and not bother with getting additional checkups even if they were offered cheaply. So in order to choose this answer, we would have to assume that cost was the reason people were not willing to go for annual checkups. We also have to assume that if it were offered cheaply, people will actually bother going for it.

One more thing, in assuming choice c, you are also assuming choice b. Choice B says that those checkups are able to detect many lethal conditions. If that were not true, even choice C will be useless

Regards

Sunil

that really helped.thanks sunil.

[jnelson0612]

Once again, Sunil rocks. :-)