#19 - Dr. Schilling: Those who advocate replacing my

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Method of Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (E)

Using the same Stimulus as the previous question, the Question Stem for Question 19 is a Method of Reasoning question type, asking which strategy Dr. Laforte uses in responding to Dr. Schilling. This is a classic Method of Reasoning question.

Answer Choice (A): This answer choice states that Dr. Laforte shows that Dr. Schilling’s objections have no bearing on which system is superior. This answer choice should be eliminated because Dr. Laforte does not address Dr. Schilling’s objections.

Answer Choice (B): This answer is incorrect because Dr. Laforte does not call into question Dr. Schilling’s status as an authority on these matters.

Answer Choice (C): This answer states that Dr. Laforte produces counterexamples to Dr. Schilling’s reasoning that nationalized health insurance extracts high human costs. Dr. Laforte provides no counterexamples to Dr. Schilling’s examples; therefore this answer choice is incorrect and should be eliminated.

Answer Choice (D): This answer states that Laforte demonstrates that Schilling’s argument is effective only because of Schilling’s ambiguous use of the term “consumer.” Dr. Laforte does not do this in his reply, so this answer choice must be eliminated.

Answer Choice (E): This is the correct answer choice. Dr. Laforte argues that access to medical care means not only being able to go see a doctor but also to afford the care prescribed. Dr. Schilling’s criticism does not address the ability to pay. In other words, what good does it do if a patient can see a physician if he or she cannot afford to pay for it.

[fg6118]

In LR Marathon p.12-46 #27, I chose answer c because I thought Dr. Laforte's last sentence was him giving counterexamples of how nationalized health insurance does not extract high human costs? If that isn't him giving counterexamples then what would be an example of him giving counterexamples?

Thanks!

[Clay Cooper]

Hi again fg,

Thanks for another good question.

Dr. Laforte does not name any specific person (real or hypothetical) experiencing high human costs or low human costs in seeking medical treatment. I think a counterexample that might make C correct would be if he had said, "For instance, a citizen of your country who has the flu must often go without treatment if they cannot afford the high cost of health insurance."

Instead, Dr. Laforte does what E describes - he points out that Dr. Schilling is only talking about access to high-technology medicine, which seems to Dr. Laforte to be missing the more important point that ease of access in a broader sense (for everyone, to basic medicine, regardless of ability to pay) is far more important.

I hope that helps. Keep working hard.

[nmgee]

I did not see a distinction between "access" and being able to afford treatment. The explanation above for answer (E) states that Dr. S does not address ability to pay, but I understood the word "access" to imply ability to afford treatment (i.e. if I don't a certain income, I don't have access to certain treatment)

So I understood Dr. S's argument as stating that many are denied access to certain treatments because of then nature of the nationalized healthcare (the rationing). And I understood Dr. L's argument as stating that some lower-income individuals, because of the nature of privatized healthcare, are denied access to some basic treatments (because of income).

I'm failing to understand how the Dr. S's interpretation of access is problematic. I feel like Dr. S is describing one side of the issue, wherein even some who can afford a treatment are denied it in a nationalized system (so income is irrelevant if treatment is rationed), and Dr. L is describing another issue, wherein some who cannot afford treatment are denied it in the private system. So I don't understand why Dr. S needs to address the ability to pay, because I understood Dr. S as saying "it does not matter whether or not you can afford it; treatment is rationed" with nationalized care, and Dr. L saying "those who can't afford it are disadvantaged" with privatized healthcare, a different system.

Help would be appreciated. Thanks in advance!

[Adam Tyson]

Hey there, nmgee, thanks for the question! I see your confusion about our explanation, and so I will take a different approach here. In my view, Dr. S's issue is that nationalized health care limits access to certain high-tech procedures, meaning that even if the patient could afford them, he can't get them. That's his issue with access - the procedure that a patient needs or wants may be denied them not because they cannot pay, but because there is a limited supply that is rationed.

Dr. L's response is to look at access from a totally different angle. To him, the bigger problem with access is in privatized health care systems, where access to even the most basic care may be denied to those that cannot afford it. To him, that's the bigger travesty - not that people who can afford certain special treatments can't get them, but that people who cannot afford the basic stuff can't get it. Only those that can pay have access to what they need.

That's why E is the best answer here - it's the only one that describes this alternate view of access as a key issue.

Now, don't make the mistake of thinking this question and answer choice have anything to do with determining that Dr. S is wrong or has a problematic approach. We don't need to make a judgment call about his argument. All we need to do is describe how Dr. L chose to respond to Dr. S. Maybe we agree with S, maybe with L, maybe we think they both have a point and should get together and figure out a way to solve both issues, but none of that matters when it comes to our task. All we have to do is describe what Dr. L did, and E does that.

I hope that clears things up a bit!

[andriana.caban]

Hi!

I had trouble understanding what both speakers were saying. So I tried to summarize, please let me know if the below summaries are a correct characterization of Dr .Shilling and Dr. La Forte's view points. I was trying to summarize Dr. La forte's position in first-person:

Dr. Shilling: Human cost of nationalized healthcare = limited access to high-technology medicine . Thus, in nationalized healthcare societies people are denied healthcare they want and need! Author assumes; in order to perform life-saving surgeries we need high technology medicine/techniques to perform, that all TREATMENTs need high tech equipment, and that privatized health care has unrestricted access to high-tech medicine (and of course, that individuals are not denied-or denied less-in privatized health care systems).

Dr. La forte: Under private health insurance people are still being denied access to health care. So, you say nationalized health care will lead to a denial of treatment because of limited access to high-technology medicine. BUT, under a nationalized system more people would be able to have LIFE-SAVING surgeries because poor people could actually afford healthcare, which is a consequence you cited as 'restricted access to high-tech medicine'.

So, if people can still get life-saving medical procedures (and, we assume, more people can get them now), then isn't your argument actually invalid now?

[Adam Tyson]

I think some of your summary in both cases is a little off, andriana.caban. For example, is summarizing Dr. S, you said "Author assumes; in order to perform life-saving surgeries we need high technology medicine/techniques to perform, that all TREATMENTs need high tech equipment". I am not sure if I am reading you correctly, but the Dr. S does NOT need to assume that all treatments need high tech equipment. It's only that access to high tech stuff is rationed, so some people can't get what they want or need. Some people want or need those treatments and cannot get them due to limited availability.

Regarding Dr. L, you said she claims or assumes "under a nationalized system more people would be able to have LIFE-SAVING surgeries", but I don't think it's about more people being able to get them. It's about everyone having the same access to those surgeries, rather than only those that can afford it. Might be the same number of people, but the mix of people is not unfairly skewed towards the wealthy. Small point, perhaps, but you don't want to accidentally select an answer that is about more people getting treated, rather than one about everyone being on the same level.

Still, in general, I think these summaries capture the gist of the discussion. As long as these got you to the right answer, you're good!

[andriana.caban]

Great - thank you for your explanation!

[tetsuya0129]

Hi Powerscore,

Even though I eventually got it correct, but I had a very hard time understanding how (E) could be the argumentative method that Laforte factually, literally employs. In my probably mistaken perspective, for (E) to be a sound credited answer, Laborte should at least have said something like "your argument requires" or "assuming your understanding is true, then..."

My understanding of this question type is that the credited choice must reflect the actual method used. Thus, I thought Laforte only points out some additional information to contend Schilling's claim that "people are denied their right to treatment they want and need." Which part of Laforte's reasoning could be understood as showing Schilling's claim "depends on" construing the key notion of access in a particular way?

Thanks!

[Frank Peter]

HI Tetsuya,

Schilling's argument is a generalized attack on nationalized health insurance, but the focus of the attack is on "access" to a particular subset of procedures. Schilling's argument "depends" on this limited scope of access because that is the only real criticism being offered.

Laforte counters with a broader concept of access: the ability of rich and poor to have equal access to decent medical treatment.