Limited research indicates that Support therapeutic intervention before the onset of mental disorders can mitigate factors identified as major contributors to them. ███ █ ████ ████ █████████████ ████████ ███████ ██ ██████ ██ ██████ █████ ███████ ███ █████ ███ ███ ██████ ██ ████████ ██████ ████ █████████ █████ ██ █████ ██ ███████ █ █████████ █████ ██ ████████████████ ███████ ██████ █████ ██ ██████ ██████████ ██ ██████ ████████ ███████ ███ ████████████ █████████
For a 1-star question, this argument’s structure is actually kinda complex. Here’s a distilled version:
Premise 1: We have some reason to believe early intervention mitigates major factors in mental illness.
Premise 2: We’d need to do more research to be sure of that, though.
________
Conclusion 1: Early intervention is potentially cost-effective.
Conclusion 2: We should increase funding for intervention research.
The answer choices (especially the correct one) deal in the gap between Premise 1 and Conclusion 1. That is, they address the link assumption between early intervention mitigating certain factors and early intervention being cost-effective.
Which one of the following, ██ █████ ████ ███████████ ███ █████████
Most minor mental █████████ ███ ████ █████████ ██ █████ ████ █████ █████ ██████ █████████
This compares minor mental disorders (a concept never discussed in the stimulus, which is about mental disorders in general) to other minor health problems (another concept that is never discussed in the stimulus).
(A) essentially says “it’s more expensive to treat mild depression than it is to treat a scraped knee,” but neither of those categories is relevant to the argument at hand, which is about the potential cost difference between early intervention and ongoing treatment.
Prevention research can ██ ███████████ ██ ███████ ████████ ████████████ █████████████ ███ ██████████ ███████████
This might sound good as a supporting sentence in the paragraph, but it doesn’t directly support the idea that more funding is needed for intervention research or, more importantly, why early intervention has the potential to be a cost-effective treatment plan.
Reducing known risk ███████ ███ ██████ █████████ ██ ██████████ ███████████ ████████ ██ ███ █████████ █████████ █████████
This addresses the link assumption between early intervention mitigating certain factors and early intervention being cost-effective. The concept of cost doesn’t appear in the argument until the conclusion – nowhere in the premises is it mentioned – so the argument needs an additional piece of information indicating explicitly that early intervention results in cost savings.
Current funding for ████████████ ████████ ██ ███ ██████ ████ ██ ███ ████ ████ ███████
If anything, this weakens the author’s case for increased funding for intervention research – “sounds like you already have all the money you need, no?”
Once a mental ████████ ███████████ █████ ██ █ ████ ██████ ████ ██ ████ ██████ █████ ████ ████████ █████ ███ █████
This piece of information doesn’t tell us much about whether it’s cheaper to treat a disorder (so it temporarily disappears) or intervene early (to prevent its recurrence). We need a direct comparison of the cost-efficacy of the two plans.
Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.
It takes about five minutes.
Take the free diagnosticWant to know why the right answer is right?
7Sage membership unlocks explanations of every question. Every answer choice. On every official PrepTest. Start with a free account.
By signing up you agree to our
terms of service.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy
and
Terms of Service
apply.