#18 - In the past decade, a decreasing percentage of money

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Justify the Conclusion-#%. The correct answer choice is (E)

Here we see a stimulus that has potential for confusion, based on the fact that the author jumps from a percentage-based premise to a conclusion about actual numbers:

Premise: Of the money spent on disease X, the portion spent on standard methods has decreased, while the portion spent on nonstandard treatments (that have thus far been ineffective) has increased.

Conclusion: Less money is currently being spent on the standard effective treatments then was spent ten years ago.

This conclusion is not completely justified—it is important to note that we have no information regarding the total amount spent. Without such information there is no way to assess the number of actual dollars being spent today versus ten years ago.

Answer choice (A): This information is irrelevant to the question of how much is being spent on traditional vs. nontraditional methods of treatment.

Answer choice (B): Like answer choice (A) above, this choice provides an irrelevant consideration. The price of one type of treatment vs. the other tells us nothing about the comparison between dollars spent in treatment today vs. dollars spent ten years ago.

Answer choice (C): The stimulus does not deal with disease X expenditures as compared with total overall medial expenditures, so the comparison in this answer does not come into play, and this choice is incorrect.

Answer choice (D): This answer choice still deals with relative terms, and it is not relevant that nonstandard treatments accounted for more expenditures. The relevant inquiry regards the amount spent on traditional treatments today versus the amount spend on such treatments ten years ago.

Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice, providing the information about total expenditures that we need to justify the conclusion in the stimulus. If the total amount spent on treatment of disease X has decreased, and the portion of that total used on traditional treatments has decreased, then that tell us the following:

As compared with ten years ago, effective traditional methods of treatment of disease X have taken a smaller piece (decreasing percentage as discussed in the stimulus) of a smaller pie (decline in total, as provided by this answer choice).

When we take into account this new information, we can conclude that less is currently being spent on traditional effective treatments than was spent ten years ago.

[taylor]

I keep running into these difficult assumption/properly-drawn conclusion questions. (E) is the correct answer, but isn't it just as feasible that, instead of slowly declining, the total amount of money spent on treating disease X remained the same? The latter is not actually an answer choice, but here is my reasoning:

First Year:
total amount = $100
percentage spent on effective/standard tx = 50% ($50)
percentage spent on ineffective/nonstandard tx = 50% ($50)

Tenth Year:
total amount = $100
percentage spent on effective tx = 20% ($20)
percentage spent on ineffective tx = 80% ($80)

This reasoning, as I see it, would also justify the conclusion (less money is being spent now on effective treatments of disease X than was spent ten years ago). What am I missing?

[Jon Denning]

Hey taylor - thanks for the question. First off, your reasoning is correct. Had an answer choice said "The total amount spent on X stayed the same" it would have definitely proven the conclusion. But (E) is equally valid in saying that the total decreased, as that would also prove the conclusion. Either way, we've justified it.

Secondly, let me spell this out a little more comprehensively for anyone else that might come along and read it. This is actually a pretty common numbers/percentages argument, where the author assumes a changing percentage indicates a similarly changing number (amount). More specifically, a decreasing percentage of the total is spent on X, hence a smaller overall amount is spent on X.

The problem with this is that it doesn't have to be true. Consider what you suggest: ten years ago we spent a total of $100 on X, 50% on standard and 50% on nonstandard. That's $50 each. This year we'll spend more, say $1000, on X, but only 10% on standard and 90% on nonstandard. That's a huge drop in percent from 50% to 10%, but we'd still spend $100 on standard this year, which is twice the AMOUNT as ten years ago. How'd that happen? The total increased.

So how can you KNOW that a decreasing percentage translates to a smaller amount? You can either keep the total the percentage is taken out of the same (your suggestion), or you can do what (E) does here and reduce the total. Either way, a smaller percentage of either the same total or of a smaller total will guarantee a smaller amount numerically. That's why (E) proves the conclusion.

Hope that helps!

JD

[taylor]

Thanks, Jon! That does make sense.

[lasinsf]

Although I understand why answer choice (E) is the best among all answer choices, I'm getting hung up on whether the statement has to be true. I realize this is not a "Must be True" question. Maybe I'm answering my own question here - the answer choice only needs to be sufficient for the conclusion to occur but is not necessary.

It states: "The total amount of money spent on treating disease X slowly declined during the past decade."

In my calculations, the total amount of money could have stayed the same. For example:

10 yrs ago: / Now:
Standard Tx: $500/$1000 (50%) / $100/$1000 (10%)
Non-Standard Tx: $100/$1000 (10%) / $900/$1000 (90%)

Could the correct answer choice have instead been worded as: "The total amount of money spent on treating disease X has remained constant during the past decade"? Would this also have justified the conclusion? It seems like it would have.

[Ron Gore]

Hi Las!

You've pretty much have it figured out. That's awesome!

Kudos for realizing that since this is a Justify the Conclusion question, the correct answer choice will provide information sufficient to prove the conclusion is valid. This is a different task than the Must Be True question type, in which the correct answer choice must follow logically from the conclusion (the reverse information flow). Also, it is a different task than the Assumption question type, in which the correct answer choice provides information required for the conclusion to be valid.

The logical gap in this stimulus is that the premises discuss the percentage of money spent on certain methods for treating disease X, but the conclusion deals with the amount of money spent on those respective treatments. This is a classic numbers and percentages flaw.

Because this is a Justify question, the answer choice needs to prove the conclusion, that "less money is being spent now on effective treatments of disease X than was spent ten years ago," is valid. While you are correct in saying that the shifting percentages does not necessarily mean the amount of money spent has decreased, saying that the amount of money spent stayed the same will not prove the conclusion. So, although the precise wording of answer choice (E) is not the only language that could possibly prove the conclusion valid, the correct answer has to establish that the amount spent on effective treatments, i.e., the standard methods, has decreased.

Please let me know if this helps.

Ron

[cmckelvey]

I chose answer choice D and still don't completely understand why this would not justify the conclusion.

Answer choice (D): This answer choice still deals with relative terms, and it is not relevant that nonstandard treatments accounted for more expenditures. The relevant inquiry regards the amount spent on traditional treatments today versus the amount spend on such treatments ten years ago.

After reading this, I am still a bit confused. If most of the money spent on treating disease X went to nonstandard treatments, there is less money being put into standard (effective) treatments.

Also, I thought if a premise was not in the conclusion (increased % spent on nonstandard treatments), then typically you would pick that answer choice.

[Steve Stein]

Greetings,

That's a great question. In more basic terms, the issue with answer choice (D) is this:

The author concludes that less is currently spent on effective treatements than was spend a decade ago. Comparison:

Current spending on effective treatments today vs. spending on effective treatments ten years ago.

Answer choice (D) provides that most of the money spent during the last ten years went toward nonstandard treatments. Comparison:

Money spent on nonstandard treatments vs. money spent on standard treatments. More was spent on non standard. less was spent on standard. but this doesn't justify a conclusion that compares today's spending on effective treatments vs analagous spending a decade ago.

I hope that's helpful! That's a tough question, so please let me know whether this is clear--thanks!

~Steve

[Blueballoon5%]

Just to clarify, is answer choice D wrong because it doesn't matter if more money overall was spent on nonstandard treatment? As in, whether more or less money was spent, the conclusion in the stimulus can still be valid?

[Shannon Parker]

Yes. Answer choice D is incorrect because it compares the amount of money spent on nonstandard treatment in the last ten years with the amount of money spent on standard treatment. Whereas the conclusion in the stimulus deals with how much money is spent on standard treatment now versus ten years ago.

Shannon