In the past decade, a decreasing

Answer choices

1. A

   Unrelated to Goal4% picked this

   Varieties of disease X requiring expensive special treatment have become less common during

   Since this argument just hinges on whether "lower % of total spending = less spending", this answer isn't telling us something that could prove the conclusion. It strengthens the idea that we're spending less money, but it definitely doesn't 100% prove it.

   4%
2. B

   Unrelated to Conclusion7% picked this

   Nonstandard methods of treating disease X are more expensive now than they were

   The conclusion is about how much money we're spending on effective (i.e. standard) treatments, so hearing about how much nonstandard treatments cost has nothing to do with how much we're spending on effective treatments.

   7%
3. C

   Out of Scope: total medical4% picked this

   Of total medical expenditures, the percentage that is due to treatment of disease X increased

   We don't care what % of a nation's total health care expenditures is related to X. We just care whether the actual amount of money being spent to treat disease X has gone up, stayed the same, or gone down.

   4%
4. D

   No Impact39% picked this

   Most of the money spent on treating disease X during the last decade went to

   It doesn't really matter to this argument whether standard or nonstandard treatments claim more or less than 50% of the budget. This argument is all about the relative movement of spending on effective treatments over time. Whether it started out above or below 50% of total spending, it could still be less now than it was ten years ago. So finding out that standard (effective) treatments are less than 50% of total spending sounds kinda strengthen-ish, but it doesn't mathematically prove the conclusion.

   39%
5. E

   Correct46% picked this

   The total amount of money spent on treating disease X slowly declined during

   Why this is right

   This mathematically proves the conclusion. A lower percentage of money is spent on effective (standard) treatments nowadays. If the total amount of money being spent on treatments nowadays is lower than before, then we're definitely spending less money on effective (standard) treatments. A smaller percentage of a smaller total definitely comes out to a smaller actual number. Here's an example of a percentage and a total going down, which is guaranteed to result in a smaller actual number. Total % on eff Amt on eff 10 yrs ago $100k 40% $40k now $90k 30% $27k

   Skill tested: Sufficient Assumption · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   46%