Self-paced
Conclusion Coherent solutions for the problem of reducing health-care costs cannot be found within the current piecemeal system of paying these costs. ███ ██████ ██ ████ ████ ██████ █████ ███████████ █████████ ███ ████████ █████ █████████ ██ ██████ ████████ █████████ ███ █████ ██ ████████ ███████ ████ ████ █████ ██ ███ █████ ██████ █████████ ███ ████████ ████ ███████ ██ ███ ██████ ██ ███ ███████ ███████ ██ ███ ██████ ████ ██ ██ ███ ████ ██ ████ ███████ ████████ ███████ ███ ██ ███████ █████████ █████ ████ ██ ██████████ ███ ████████ ████ ███ ██████████ ███████████ █████████ ███████ ███ ███ ████ ███ █████ ██ ███████████ ████████ ███ ████ ██████ ██ ███████████ ████████ ████ ████████ ███████ █████ █████████ ██████████ ██ ████████ █████████ █████ ██ █████████ ████████
Russian Nesting Support
This stimulus is a bit like a matryoshka doll – each successive claim provides support for the claim above. Here's a distilled version with the cruxes of Q7 and Q8 pointed out:
Conclusion: The current piecemeal system fundamentally cannot work. ←Q8
Support: Under this system, everyone just shifts costs around to everyone else.
Support-for-the-support: In the 1980s, we saw a bunch of reforms that just shifted costs around, kinda like a balloon. ←Q7
Support-for-the-support-for-the-support: Here's one example reform that shifted costs around.
8.
The argument provides the most ███████ ███ █████ ███ ██ ███ ██████████
a
Under the conditions ██ █████ ███ ███████ ██████ █████████ ███ ███████ ██████ ██ ███████████ █████ █████ ██ ███████ ██ ██ ████ ████ ██ █ █████████████ █████████
Here’s a translation:
Approaches that aren’t comprehensive won’t shrink costs under the current system.
Parsing (A) correctly is important. (A) doesn’t say we can shrink costs using a comprehensive approach – it says other approaches won’t work, which captures the stimulus’ core idea.
The stimulus’ balloon analogy is quite useful here: solutions that don’t address all the spending areas at once will simply make a bulge pop up in whatever areas aren’t addressed.
b
Relative to the █████████ █████████ ███ ███████████ ████████ ███ ██████ ██ ███ ███████████ ███████████ █████████████ ██ ███ █████
This is broadly consistent with the idea that “we’re spending too much on health-care stuff,” but there’s no support for (B)’s specific claim about high-paid doctors being too high-paid relative to the overall pool of resources.
c
Health-care costs are █████████ ██ ████ ██████████ █████ ████ ████ ████ ████ █████████ ███ █████
The stimulus only discusses how health-care costs react to funding cuts. The concept of new funds being added is never mentioned.
d
Advances in medical ██████████ ████ ██████ ███ ████████ █████████ ██ ███████ ████ ███ ████ ██████ ██████████
Neither technological advances nor standards of care are mentioned in the stimulus.
e
Since unfilled hospital ████ ██████████ ██ ████████ ███████ ██ ████ ███████████ █████ ██ █████ ██ ██████ ██ ████ ██████ ████████ ████████ ██ ███████ ███ ███████████ ████████████
For (E) to be correct, the “since” clause needs direct support too. MSS answer choices can’t just tack on additional facts, assert their truth, then come to additional conclusions.
The stimulus gives us no support for the very specific claim that unfilled hospital beds contribute to overhead charges on each patient’s bill.