Text 1: Oncologist Dr. Rebecca Hall promotes early cancer screening. "Catching cancers early dramatically improves survival rates," Hall argues. "Regular mammograms and colonoscopies save thousands of lives annually by detecting treatable conditions."
Text 2: Epidemiologist Dr. James Chen questions aggressive screening. "Some screening programs detect slow-growing tumors that would never cause symptoms," Chen observes. "Overdiagnosis leads to unnecessary treatment, anxiety, and medical costs."
Based on the texts, Hall and Chen fundamentally disagree about which aspect of cancer screening?
Whether cancer detection technology actually works
Whether the benefits of broad screening outweigh potential harms
Whether cancer treatments are ever effective
Whether patients should consult doctors
Correct Answer: B
Choice B is the correct answer. Hall emphasizes lives saved (benefits); Chen emphasizes overdiagnosis and unnecessary treatment (harms). Their disagreement centers on whether net effects justify screening.
- Evidence: Hall: saves lives; Chen: causes unnecessary intervention.
- Reasoning: Both acknowledge detection occurs—they weigh outcomes differently.
- Conclusion: The debate concerns benefit-harm balance.
Choice A is incorrect because both accept screening detects cancers. Choice C is incorrect because treatment efficacy isn't central. Choice D is incorrect because patient-doctor relationships aren't discussed.