Passage Summary: Preventing sickness saves money, but medical schools spend almost all their time teaching how to fix sickness instead, so they aren't being as cost-effective as they could be.

Conclusion: Medical schools are failing to provide enough training in preventive medicine if their objective is to increase cost-effectiveness.

Reasoning: Preventive medicine is highly cost-effective, yet medical schools dedicate ten times more hours to teaching curative medicine than they do to preventive medicine.

Analysis: The argument assumes that the current ratio of instruction time is the primary factor limiting cost-effectiveness. It takes for granted that spending more time in the classroom on prevention will actually translate into doctors practicing more cost-effectively in the real world. We need to assume that the amount of time spent teaching a subject is directly related to how well or how often it is applied. Look for an answer that connects the 'hours spent teaching' to the actual 'cost-effective' outcomes the editorial desires.