Total Posts:134|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Can you apply Logic?

logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2011 10:07:25 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Since so many of the posts I have rad claim to be based on the ability to reason I thought I would post a sample question and s how many thought they could answer it correctly.

Recent dental research shows that bacteria around the gum line produces a substance that in sufficient amounts induces preterm labor in pregant women and clogging of arteries, both of which add to payouts by health insurers to medical-service providers. In response, one health-insurance company has begun to provide additional dental benefits, including coverage for one additional cleaning by a professional hygenist or dentist each year, to pregnant women and to people proven to be at high risk of developing heart disease.

The insurance company's response described above would be most likely to minimize the company's payouts to medical-service providers, but only if what were also true?
caveat
Posts: 2,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2011 10:50:34 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
the company has clients.
There is an art, it says, or rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss. " Clearly, it is this second part, the missing, which presents the difficulties.
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2011 4:37:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/8/2011 10:50:34 AM, caveat wrote:
the company has clients.

Totally incorrect, in fact almost perfectly backwards , thanks.
caveat
Posts: 2,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2011 5:32:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/8/2011 4:37:11 PM, logicrules wrote:
At 12/8/2011 10:50:34 AM, caveat wrote:
the company has clients.

Totally incorrect, in fact almost perfectly backwards , thanks.

No problem.
There is an art, it says, or rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss. " Clearly, it is this second part, the missing, which presents the difficulties.
tyler90az
Posts: 971
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2011 6:43:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
If the company does not get new clients. If the company increases clients, they will have more pay outs.
Today we begin in earnest the work of making sure that the world we leave our children is just a little bit better than the one we inhabit today. - President Obama
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2011 6:00:10 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/8/2011 6:43:30 PM, tyler90az wrote:
If the company does not get new clients. If the company increases clients, they will have more pay outs.

Wow....non responsive, has nothing to do with the premise.
tyler90az
Posts: 971
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2011 8:26:30 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/9/2011 6:00:10 AM, logicrules wrote:
At 12/8/2011 6:43:30 PM, tyler90az wrote:
If the company does not get new clients. If the company increases clients, they will have more pay outs.

Wow....non responsive, has nothing to do with the premise.

It may not be the answer your looking for, but it is a true statement.
Today we begin in earnest the work of making sure that the world we leave our children is just a little bit better than the one we inhabit today. - President Obama
caveat
Posts: 2,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2011 8:44:21 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
This thread has no value as there are numerous logical and truthful responses (e.g. if they have no clients, they cannot possibly decrease payouts), and you seem to be equating the ability to apply logic with guessing the specific answer you had in mind.

That being said, perhaps you should change your username logicrules.
There is an art, it says, or rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss. " Clearly, it is this second part, the missing, which presents the difficulties.
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2011 9:13:49 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/9/2011 8:44:21 AM, caveat wrote:
This thread has no value as there are numerous logical and truthful responses (e.g. if they have no clients, they cannot possibly decrease payouts), and you seem to be equating the ability to apply logic with guessing the specific answer you had in mind.

That being said, perhaps you should change your username logicrules.

There is only one correct answer to the interrogatory, using applied logic.
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2011 9:15:30 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/9/2011 8:26:30 AM, tyler90az wrote:
At 12/9/2011 6:00:10 AM, logicrules wrote:
At 12/8/2011 6:43:30 PM, tyler90az wrote:
If the company does not get new clients. If the company increases clients, they will have more pay outs.

Wow....non responsive, has nothing to do with the premise.

It may not be the answer your looking for, but it is a true statement.

LOL Thus so long as you provide the answer 5 to 2+2=x The answer one is looking for is irrelevant....got it. Thanks.
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2011 9:18:44 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
This is a test question for those who must display a knowledge of logic to continue studies. It is a fairly simple question requiring only a basic understanding of how to apply logic; the discipline of thought and/or reason. Hint, agreeing or disagreeing with the information is irrelevant. It isn't a trick question either.
tyler90az
Posts: 971
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2011 9:22:56 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/9/2011 8:44:21 AM, caveat wrote:
This thread has no value as there are numerous logical and truthful responses (e.g. if they have no clients, they cannot possibly decrease payouts), and you seem to be equating the ability to apply logic with guessing the specific answer you had in mind.

That being said, perhaps you should change your username logicrules.

Ditto....
Today we begin in earnest the work of making sure that the world we leave our children is just a little bit better than the one we inhabit today. - President Obama
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2011 9:24:09 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Any answer having to do with the Insurance company's number of insured s irrelevant based on the information provided and the question.

No Insured, means no likelihood at all because one can not reduce 0.

There is one correct answer, simple if anyone really understands Logic.
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2011 9:25:53 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/9/2011 8:44:21 AM, caveat wrote:
This thread has no value as there are numerous logical and truthful responses (e.g. if they have no clients, they cannot possibly decrease payouts), and you seem to be equating the ability to apply logic with guessing the specific answer you had in mind.

That being said, perhaps you should change your username logic rules.

Logic is different from Truth, and truthful only refers to the speaker, thus there is much value inherent in the post, albeit indeterminable by some.
tyler90az
Posts: 971
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2011 9:30:11 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/8/2011 10:07:25 AM, logicrules wrote:
Since so many of the posts I have rad claim to be based on the ability to reason I thought I would post a sample question and s how many thought they could answer it correctly.

Recent dental research shows that bacteria around the gum line produces a substance that in sufficient amounts induces preterm labor in pregant women and clogging of arteries, both of which add to payouts by health insurers to medical-service providers. In response, one health-insurance company has begun to provide additional dental benefits, including coverage for one additional cleaning by a professional hygenist or dentist each year, to pregnant women and to people proven to be at high risk of developing heart disease.

The insurance company's response described above would be most likely to minimize the company's payouts to medical-service providers, but only if what were also true?

Another answer is, the cost of dental cleanings. If the cost of dental cleanings is lower then the other stuff, it would save the insurance company on payouts.
Today we begin in earnest the work of making sure that the world we leave our children is just a little bit better than the one we inhabit today. - President Obama
caveat
Posts: 2,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2011 9:31:22 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/9/2011 9:25:53 AM, logicrules wrote:
At 12/9/2011 8:44:21 AM, caveat wrote:
This thread has no value as there are numerous logical and truthful responses (e.g. if they have no clients, they cannot possibly decrease payouts), and you seem to be equating the ability to apply logic with guessing the specific answer you had in mind.

That being said, perhaps you should change your username logic rules.

Logic is different from Truth, and truthful only refers to the speaker, thus there is much value inherent in the post, albeit indeterminable by some.

"Truthful" most certainly does not only refer to the speaker. I was not claiming to be truthful myself (despite being so), rather that my statement was truthful. If you deny this, I see no point in furthering any discourse.
There is an art, it says, or rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss. " Clearly, it is this second part, the missing, which presents the difficulties.
tyler90az
Posts: 971
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2011 9:35:06 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/9/2011 9:30:11 AM, tyler90az wrote:
At 12/8/2011 10:07:25 AM, logicrules wrote:
Since so many of the posts I have rad claim to be based on the ability to reason I thought I would post a sample question and s how many thought they could answer it correctly.

Recent dental research shows that bacteria around the gum line produces a substance that in sufficient amounts induces preterm labor in pregant women and clogging of arteries, both of which add to payouts by health insurers to medical-service providers. In response, one health-insurance company has begun to provide additional dental benefits, including coverage for one additional cleaning by a professional hygenist or dentist each year, to pregnant women and to people proven to be at high risk of developing heart disease.

The insurance company's response described above would be most likely to minimize the company's payouts to medical-service providers, but only if what were also true?


Another answer is, the cost of dental cleanings. If the cost of dental cleanings is lower then the other stuff, it would save the insurance company on payouts.

Another is, if the pregnant women did not go into pre term labor and those people who had cleanings did not get heart disease. Even know they received a cleaning there is still a possibility the aforementioned things could happen.
Today we begin in earnest the work of making sure that the world we leave our children is just a little bit better than the one we inhabit today. - President Obama
caveat
Posts: 2,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2011 9:37:29 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
As I said earlier, there are numerous logical solutions, some of which have already been posted.

You were probably looking for something like "if the cleanings actually had any impact on the bacterium and consequently, if enough people bothered to claim the additional cleaning coverage such that the cost of said cleanings offset the payouts that would have occurred if the cleanings were not administered".
There is an art, it says, or rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss. " Clearly, it is this second part, the missing, which presents the difficulties.
caveat
Posts: 2,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2011 9:39:30 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/9/2011 9:37:29 AM, caveat wrote:
As I said earlier, there are numerous logical solutions, some of which have already been posted.

You were probably looking for something like "if the cleanings actually had any impact on the bacterium and consequently, if enough people bothered to claim the additional cleaning coverage such that the cost of said cleanings offset the payouts that would have occurred if the cleanings were not administered".

impact on the substance and its consequences, rather.
There is an art, it says, or rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss. " Clearly, it is this second part, the missing, which presents the difficulties.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2011 9:47:24 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/9/2011 9:30:11 AM, tyler90az wrote:
At 12/8/2011 10:07:25 AM, logicrules wrote:
Since so many of the posts I have rad claim to be based on the ability to reason I thought I would post a sample question and s how many thought they could answer it correctly.

Recent dental research shows that bacteria around the gum line produces a substance that in sufficient amounts induces preterm labor in pregant women and clogging of arteries, both of which add to payouts by health insurers to medical-service providers. In response, one health-insurance company has begun to provide additional dental benefits, including coverage for one additional cleaning by a professional hygenist or dentist each year, to pregnant women and to people proven to be at high risk of developing heart disease.

The insurance company's response described above would be most likely to minimize the company's payouts to medical-service providers, but only if what were also true?


Another answer is, the cost of dental cleanings. If the cost of dental cleanings is lower then the other stuff, it would save the insurance company on payouts.

This seems, to me, to be the most appriopriate answer. An analysis should determine how many payouts in the previous year were a result of this phenomenon. Based on that they can determine whether or not giving an additional free cleaning to said group is cost-effective. It also requires people to actively make use of this benefit.
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2011 11:01:16 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/9/2011 9:31:22 AM, caveat wrote:
At 12/9/2011 9:25:53 AM, logicrules wrote:
At 12/9/2011 8:44:21 AM, caveat wrote:
This thread has no value as there are numerous logical and truthful responses (e.g. if they have no clients, they cannot possibly decrease payouts), and you seem to be equating the ability to apply logic with guessing the specific answer you had in mind.

That being said, perhaps you should change your username logic rules.

Logic is different from Truth, and truthful only refers to the speaker, thus there is much value inherent in the post, albeit indeterminable by some.

"Truthful" most certainly does not only refer to the speaker. I was not claiming to be truthful myself (despite being so), rather that my statement was truthful. If you deny this, I see no point in furthering any discourse.

Ok, but it is not I who deny it is the meaning of terms and their usage. You are probably correct, discourse requires one to understand the distinction inherent in the terms used so as understand those things outside a particular paradigm.
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2011 11:03:05 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/9/2011 9:35:06 AM, tyler90az wrote:
At 12/9/2011 9:30:11 AM, tyler90az wrote:
At 12/8/2011 10:07:25 AM, logicrules wrote:
Since so many of the posts I have rad claim to be based on the ability to reason I thought I would post a sample question and s how many thought they could answer it correctly.

Recent dental research shows that bacteria around the gum line produces a substance that in sufficient amounts induces preterm labor in pregant women and clogging of arteries, both of which add to payouts by health insurers to medical-service providers. In response, one health-insurance company has begun to provide additional dental benefits, including coverage for one additional cleaning by a professional hygenist or dentist each year, to pregnant women and to people proven to be at high risk of developing heart disease.

The insurance company's response described above would be most likely to minimize the company's payouts to medical-service providers, but only if what were also true?


Another answer is, the cost of dental cleanings. If the cost of dental cleanings is lower then the other stuff, it would save the insurance company on payouts.

Another is, if the pregnant women did not go into pre term labor and those people who had cleanings did not get heart disease. Even know they received a cleaning there is still a possibility the aforementioned things could happen.

This is getting close but still incorrect.
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2011 11:04:59 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/9/2011 9:37:29 AM, caveat wrote:
As I said earlier, there are numerous logical solutions, some of which have already been posted.

You were probably looking for something like "if the cleanings actually had any impact on the bacterium and consequently, if enough people bothered to claim the additional cleaning coverage such that the cost of said cleanings offset the payouts that would have occurred if the cleanings were not administered".

And, your earlier post was incorrect. It is not I looking it is Logic. In this instance there is only one answer that is correct applying Logic, there is no debate as it is disciplinary.
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2011 11:06:50 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/9/2011 9:39:30 AM, caveat wrote:
At 12/9/2011 9:37:29 AM, caveat wrote:
As I said earlier, there are numerous logical solutions, some of which have already been posted.

You were probably looking for something like "if the cleanings actually had any impact on the bacterium and consequently, if enough people bothered to claim the additional cleaning coverage such that the cost of said cleanings offset the payouts that would have occurred if the cleanings were not administered".

impact on the substance and its consequences, rather.

Could be, unless you re using substance in its logical meaning, (Aristotelian) in which case....no. Clarify.
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2011 11:10:07 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/9/2011 9:47:24 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/9/2011 9:30:11 AM, tyler90az wrote:
At 12/8/2011 10:07:25 AM, logicrules wrote:
Since so many of the posts I have rad claim to be based on the ability to reason I thought I would post a sample question and s how many thought they could answer it correctly.

Recent dental research shows that bacteria around the gum line produces a substance that in sufficient amounts induces preterm labor in pregant women and clogging of arteries, both of which add to payouts by health insurers to medical-service providers. In response, one health-insurance company has begun to provide additional dental benefits, including coverage for one additional cleaning by a professional hygenist or dentist each year, to pregnant women and to people proven to be at high risk of developing heart disease.

The insurance company's response described above would be most likely to minimize the company's payouts to medical-service providers, but only if what were also true?


Another answer is, the cost of dental cleanings. If the cost of dental cleanings is lower then the other stuff, it would save the insurance company on payouts.

This seems, to me, to be the most appriopriate answer. An analysis should determine how many payouts in the previous year were a result of this phenomenon. Based on that they can determine whether or not giving an additional free cleaning to said group is cost-effective. It also requires people to actively make use of this benefit.

Incorrect. Hint, the answer has nothing to do with payouts as, logically, they are the effect not the cause, in other words payouts are a dependent variable, hence irrelevant in response to the question. (that's also a hint)
caveat
Posts: 2,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2011 11:12:49 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/9/2011 11:06:50 AM, logicrules wrote:
At 12/9/2011 9:39:30 AM, caveat wrote:
At 12/9/2011 9:37:29 AM, caveat wrote:
As I said earlier, there are numerous logical solutions, some of which have already been posted.

You were probably looking for something like "if the cleanings actually had any impact on the bacterium and consequently, if enough people bothered to claim the additional cleaning coverage such that the cost of said cleanings offset the payouts that would have occurred if the cleanings were not administered".

impact on the substance and its consequences, rather.

Could be, unless you re using substance in its logical meaning, (Aristotelian) in which case....no. Clarify.

The following must be true for the solution to minimize payouts:

1. The cleanings have significant impact on the substance build-up in the gums that causes pre-term labor in pregnant women and the clogging of arteries.

2. Enough people bother to claim the additional cleaning coverage such that the total cost of the cleanings is outweighed by the payouts that would have occurred if the aforementioned cleanings were not administered.
There is an art, it says, or rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss. " Clearly, it is this second part, the missing, which presents the difficulties.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2011 11:14:09 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/8/2011 10:07:25 AM, logicrules wrote:
Since so many of the posts I have rad claim to be based on the ability to reason I thought I would post a sample question and s how many thought they could answer it correctly.

Recent dental research shows that bacteria around the gum line produces a substance that in sufficient amounts induces preterm labor in pregant women and clogging of arteries, both of which add to payouts by health insurers to medical-service providers. In response, one health-insurance company has begun to provide additional dental benefits, including coverage for one additional cleaning by a professional hygenist or dentist each year, to pregnant women and to people proven to be at high risk of developing heart disease.

The insurance company's response described above would be most likely to minimize the company's payouts to medical-service providers, but only if what were also true?

This will only be true if the teeth cleanings (1 extra per year) show to reduce the presence of that bateria (and as such the substance that they produce) by a significant enough amount to offset their cost.

The study only showed that such bateria cause a said problem. The study did not show what methods are best to reduce and minimize that bateria. That should be the next study that the insurance company does (find out what cleaning methods do what) and use that study to determine what additional benefits (if any) should be given.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2011 11:46:27 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/9/2011 11:10:07 AM, logicrules wrote:
At 12/9/2011 9:47:24 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/9/2011 9:30:11 AM, tyler90az wrote:
At 12/8/2011 10:07:25 AM, logicrules wrote:
Since so many of the posts I have rad claim to be based on the ability to reason I thought I would post a sample question and s how many thought they could answer it correctly.

Recent dental research shows that bacteria around the gum line produces a substance that in sufficient amounts induces preterm labor in pregant women and clogging of arteries, both of which add to payouts by health insurers to medical-service providers. In response, one health-insurance company has begun to provide additional dental benefits, including coverage for one additional cleaning by a professional hygenist or dentist each year, to pregnant women and to people proven to be at high risk of developing heart disease.

The insurance company's response described above would be most likely to minimize the company's payouts to medical-service providers, but only if what were also true?


Another answer is, the cost of dental cleanings. If the cost of dental cleanings is lower then the other stuff, it would save the insurance company on payouts.

This seems, to me, to be the most appriopriate answer. An analysis should determine how many payouts in the previous year were a result of this phenomenon. Based on that they can determine whether or not giving an additional free cleaning to said group is cost-effective. It also requires people to actively make use of this benefit.

Incorrect. Hint, the answer has nothing to do with payouts as, logically, they are the effect not the cause, in other words payouts are a dependent variable, hence irrelevant in response to the question. (that's also a hint)

It may not be the answer you're looking for, but it certainly is correct. All such decisions are cost-benefit decisions. I think your quesiton is not worded properly to illicit the desired response.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2011 11:57:15 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/9/2011 11:46:27 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/9/2011 11:10:07 AM, logicrules wrote:
At 12/9/2011 9:47:24 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/9/2011 9:30:11 AM, tyler90az wrote:
At 12/8/2011 10:07:25 AM, logicrules wrote:
Since so many of the posts I have rad claim to be based on the ability to reason I thought I would post a sample question and s how many thought they could answer it correctly.

Recent dental research shows that bacteria around the gum line produces a substance that in sufficient amounts induces preterm labor in pregant women and clogging of arteries, both of which add to payouts by health insurers to medical-service providers. In response, one health-insurance company has begun to provide additional dental benefits, including coverage for one additional cleaning by a professional hygenist or dentist each year, to pregnant women and to people proven to be at high risk of developing heart disease.

The insurance company's response described above would be most likely to minimize the company's payouts to medical-service providers, but only if what were also true?


Another answer is, the cost of dental cleanings. If the cost of dental cleanings is lower then the other stuff, it would save the insurance company on payouts.

This seems, to me, to be the most appriopriate answer. An analysis should determine how many payouts in the previous year were a result of this phenomenon. Based on that they can determine whether or not giving an additional free cleaning to said group is cost-effective. It also requires people to actively make use of this benefit.

Incorrect. Hint, the answer has nothing to do with payouts as, logically, they are the effect not the cause, in other words payouts are a dependent variable, hence irrelevant in response to the question. (that's also a hint)

It may not be the answer you're looking for, but it certainly is correct. All such decisions are cost-benefit decisions. I think your quesiton is not worded properly to illicit the desired response.

Think a little differently.

You said, "An analysis should determine how many payouts in the previous year were a result of this phenomenon."

That is hard to prove, a better would be, "An analysis should determine how many payouts in the previous year could have been prevented by action A, B, or C."

From there you can more accurately do a cost/benefit analysis.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2011 11:59:06 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/9/2011 11:57:15 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 12/9/2011 11:46:27 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/9/2011 11:10:07 AM, logicrules wrote:
At 12/9/2011 9:47:24 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/9/2011 9:30:11 AM, tyler90az wrote:
At 12/8/2011 10:07:25 AM, logicrules wrote:
Since so many of the posts I have rad claim to be based on the ability to reason I thought I would post a sample question and s how many thought they could answer it correctly.

Recent dental research shows that bacteria around the gum line produces a substance that in sufficient amounts induces preterm labor in pregant women and clogging of arteries, both of which add to payouts by health insurers to medical-service providers. In response, one health-insurance company has begun to provide additional dental benefits, including coverage for one additional cleaning by a professional hygenist or dentist each year, to pregnant women and to people proven to be at high risk of developing heart disease.

The insurance company's response described above would be most likely to minimize the company's payouts to medical-service providers, but only if what were also true?


Another answer is, the cost of dental cleanings. If the cost of dental cleanings is lower then the other stuff, it would save the insurance company on payouts.

This seems, to me, to be the most appriopriate answer. An analysis should determine how many payouts in the previous year were a result of this phenomenon. Based on that they can determine whether or not giving an additional free cleaning to said group is cost-effective. It also requires people to actively make use of this benefit.

Incorrect. Hint, the answer has nothing to do with payouts as, logically, they are the effect not the cause, in other words payouts are a dependent variable, hence irrelevant in response to the question. (that's also a hint)

It may not be the answer you're looking for, but it certainly is correct. All such decisions are cost-benefit decisions. I think your quesiton is not worded properly to illicit the desired response.

Think a little differently.

You said, "An analysis should determine how many payouts in the previous year were a result of this phenomenon."

That is hard to prove, a better would be, "An analysis should determine how many payouts in the previous year could have been prevented by action A, B, or C."

From there you can more accurately do a cost/benefit analysis.

LOL it isn't about accounting its about Logic.