#19 - Editorial: Medical schools spend one hour teaching

[Christmaspuppy]

Hi!

I have trouble with eliminating AC A. Because I think I put my focus on the relationship between: if want to be cost- effective, then the preventive medicine time is insufficient. I think AC A give the perfect answer. Why you can't be cost-effective, if you give much more time on curative medicine? Maybe it will cut down the cost more than preventive medicine if you do that. I think the correct answer is E only because put the focus on why it's time is insufficient.

Thanks!

[Adam Tyson]

An Assumption is necessary if it must be true, Christmaspuppy, which means that the argument would fall apart if the assumption turned out to be false. That's why the "Assumption Negation Technique" works on these questions: the correct answer, when negated (which means treating the answer as if it is false), will make the argument fall apart, while the wrong answers will not have that effect when negated. Wrong answers don't have to be true, so negating them doesn't destroy the reasoning in the argument.

Applying that test to answer A, what happens if it is not true? What if preventive medicine does not make use of technologies that are lower in initial cost than the technologies used within the practice of curative medicine? Could the argument still be valid? Could it still be true that since preventative medicine cuts down on costs, medical schools are not spending enough time teaching it? It looks to me like the initial cost of the technology is irrelevant to the issue of how much time needs to be spent on teaching preventative medicine, and for that reason answer A is not a required assumption of the argument.

Could A be true? Sure! But does this argument REQUIRE it to be true? Not at all. That's why it is not "an assumption on which the editorial’s argument depends" and is thus a wrong answer.

[Christmaspuppy]

An Assumption is necessary if it must be true, Christmaspuppy, which means that the argument would fall apart if the assumption turned out to be false. That's why the "Assumption Negation Technique" works on these questions: the correct answer, when negated (which means treating the answer as if it is false), will make the argument fall apart, while the wrong answers will not have that effect when negated. Wrong answers don't have to be true, so negating them doesn't destroy the reasoning in the argument.

Applying that test to answer A, what happens if it is not true? What if preventive medicine does not make use of technologies that are lower in initial cost than the technologies used within the practice of curative medicine? Could the argument still be valid? Could it still be true that since preventative medicine cuts down on costs, medical schools are not spending enough time teaching it? It looks to me like the initial cost of the technology is irrelevant to the issue of how much time needs to be spent on teaching preventative medicine, and for that reason answer A is not a required assumption of the argument.

Could A be true? Sure! But does this argument REQUIRE it to be true? Not at all. That's why it is not "an assumption on which the editorial’s argument depends" and is thus a wrong answer.

Thank you Adam! I think my mistake is I was confused by the word"initial cost". Now I see why answer A is wrong. Thanks for your help!

[ltowns1]

Hi, just so I can get a hold of this idea in my own head about (A), even if you were to assume that costs could be cut by just as much if not more than preventative medicine by using curative medicine, there is still the dramatic separation in hours spent teaching one form over another, so the argument could still stand if you were to assume that initial technology costs could somehow equate to medical costs in general. The argument is only saying that you’re not spending enough time using preventative medicine. Is that a correct perspective?

[Beth Hayden]

Hi Itowns,

It doesn't really matter how much the technology itself costs. The argument asserts that when doctors use preventative medicine techniques medical costs go down. That is true regardless of how the cost of technology factors into the calculus.

You are correct, the issue with this argument is that it assumes that spending 1/10 of the time to teach preventative medicine isn't enough. If the amount of time currently being spent on preventative medicine is plenty to teach it thoroughly then the argument fails.

Hope that helps!
Beth

[ltowns1]

Hi Itowns,

It doesn't really matter how much the technology itself costs. The argument asserts that when doctors use preventative medicine techniques medical costs go down. That is true regardless of how the cost of technology factors into the calculus.

You are correct, the issue with this argument is that it assumes that spending 1/10 of the time to teach preventative medicine isn't enough. If the amount of time currently being spent on preventative medicine is plenty to teach it thoroughly then the argument fails.

Hope that helps!
Beth

Thank you!