For several years, per capita expenditure on prescription : GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) - Page 2
Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases http://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 21 Jan 2017, 18:42

### GMAT Club Daily Prep

#### Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# For several years, per capita expenditure on prescription

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

VP
Status: There is always something new !!
Affiliations: PMI,QAI Global,eXampleCG
Joined: 08 May 2009
Posts: 1353
Followers: 17

Kudos [?]: 240 [0], given: 10

Re: For several years, per capita expenditure on prescription [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 May 2011, 01:30
A takes into consideration that prices are more for the new products.
_________________

Visit -- http://www.sustainable-sphere.com/
Promote Green Business,Sustainable Living and Green Earth !!

Manager
Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Posts: 103
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, General Management
Schools: IIMA (M)
GMAT 1: 640 Q48 V29
GMAT 2: 670 Q49 V31
WE: Supply Chain Management (Military & Defense)
Followers: 6

Kudos [?]: 26 [0], given: 6

Re: For several years, per capita expenditure on prescription [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 May 2011, 02:25
very tough one , will go for A
_________________

lets start again

Moderator
Joined: 01 Sep 2010
Posts: 3091
Followers: 785

Kudos [?]: 6537 [0], given: 1012

Re: For several years, per capita expenditure on prescription [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 May 2011, 10:14
barakhaiev wrote:
Quite a challenging question.

I picked initially D, but when saw the OA was very confused.

good reasoning is provided by MGMAT staff here:

http://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/for ... t2413.html

I also pick D........thanks for providing the useful link

tough question, anyway
_________________
Current Student
Status: Up again.
Joined: 31 Oct 2010
Posts: 541
Concentration: Strategy, Operations
GMAT 1: 710 Q48 V40
GMAT 2: 740 Q49 V42
Followers: 21

Kudos [?]: 410 [0], given: 75

Re: For several years, per capita expenditure on prescription [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 May 2011, 13:46
gmat1011 wrote:
sly:)... they found the loophole.

Law says: you can't increase the price.

Businessman: ok. I will manufacture a new product (with slight changes) and put it in the market and charge a high price to begin with - then the price ceiling can't stop me from charging the price I want.

Spot on with your reasoning gmat1011

The law said manufacturers can't increase the prices, but it didnt put any restriction on introducing new products with higher prices.
_________________

My GMAT debrief: http://gmatclub.com/forum/from-620-to-710-my-gmat-journey-114437.html

Manager
Joined: 21 Aug 2010
Posts: 58
Location: United Kingdom
GMAT Date: 06-28-2014
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 2

Re: For several years, per capita expenditure on prescription [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 May 2011, 14:29
A It is... GMAT doesnt always give the best answer choice, One has to pick best out of 5...
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 7125
Location: Pune, India
Followers: 2137

Kudos [?]: 13682 [3] , given: 222

Re: For several years, per capita expenditure on prescription [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Jun 2011, 18:03
3
KUDOS
Expert's post
@Onell: Here is the explanation.

The question says
"Which of the following, if true, most helps to explain why the ministry’s action did not achieve its goal?"

Think like a detective here:
The point is that there is a price freeze. Use of the drugs is not increasing either (more medicine is not being sold). Then why the heck is per capita expenditure increasing? What information would help you make sense of the situation?
If you come to know that manufacturers are introducing newer products to replace the existing ones, could that provide a possible explanation (notice the use of "could" not "will")? Yes, it could.. It does explain if the newer medication is introduced at higher prices. So it COULD help...

Can any of the other options help? No.
E doesn't help. All E says is that some expensive foreign medication is not marketed here anymore. People could be using domestic cheaper products in place of the foreign ones or they could get their medication from neighboring countries which could be cheap (per capita expenditure comes down) or expensive (per capita expenditure stays as before since foreign products were also expensive). It doesn't explain why the per capita expenditure increases.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
My Blog

Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for \$199

Veritas Prep Reviews

Manager
Joined: 04 Sep 2010
Posts: 84
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 12 [0], given: 11

Re: For several years, per capita expenditure on prescription [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Jun 2011, 02:49
good question
Manager
Joined: 27 Dec 2007
Posts: 75
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 27 [0], given: 1

Re: For several years, per capita expenditure on prescription [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Jun 2011, 05:48
A 1+
Senior Manager
Joined: 20 Dec 2010
Posts: 258
Schools: UNC Duke Kellogg
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 40 [0], given: 4

Re: For several years, per capita expenditure on prescription [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Jun 2011, 10:10
Terrific question!!...Took a while to figure it out...but went with E --- of course A makes perfect sense..

Takeaway: Got to think outside the box sometimes....and use one's imagination to crack questions! Just following a single strategy or approach is just not going to "cut it"!
Senior Manager
Joined: 29 Jan 2011
Posts: 367
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 201 [0], given: 87

Re: For several years, per capita expenditure on prescription [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Sep 2011, 02:38
getmba wrote:
I would go with A.

Although manufacturers did not increase price of their existing products, but they replaced existing ones with new medications, which cost more. Even though there is no expansion in use of prescription drugs, still per capita expenditure for prescription drugs continued to increase by a substantial percentage each year.

In D, if doctor’s prescribe generic drugs which are cheaper than expensive brand-names then how would it justify the increase in per capita expenditure for prescription drugs. It will in fact decrease per capita expenditure for prescription drugs.

Where does it say that the new drugs costs more. It might cost less too. How can we assume that it costs more?? I am not convinced.
Manager
Status: Target MBA
Joined: 20 Jul 2010
Posts: 211
Location: Singapore
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 16 [0], given: 12

Re: For several years, per capita expenditure on prescription [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Sep 2011, 05:41
cialit0506 wrote:
For several years, per capita expenditure on prescription drugs in Voronia rose by fifteen percent or more annually. In order to curb these dramatic increases, the ministry of health prohibited drug manufacturers from raising any of their products’ prices. Even though use of prescription drugs did not expand after this price freeze, per capita expenditure for prescription drugs continued to increase by a substantial percentage each year.

Which of the following, if true, most helps to explain why the ministry’s action did not achieve its goal?

A. After price increases were prohibited, drug manufacturers concentrated on producing new medications to replace existing products
B. The population of Voronia rose steadily throughout the period
C. Improvements in manufacturing processes enable drug manufacturers to maintain high profit levels on drugs despite the price freeze.
D. In addition to imposing a price freeze, the government encouraged doctors to prescribe generic versions of common drugs instead of the more expensive brand-name versions
E. After price increases were prohibited, some foreign manufacturers of expensive drugs ceased marketing them in Voronia.

I cannot get my head round the reasonings of the OA. No matter how I look at it, D seems the best answer. If D is true, wouldn’t per capita expenditure of drugs increase?

OA should be A
_________________

Thanks and Regards,
GM.

Manager
Status: SC SC SC SC SC.... Concentrating on SC alone.
Joined: 20 Dec 2010
Posts: 240
Location: India
Concentration: General Management
GMAT Date: 12-30-2011
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 60 [0], given: 47

Re: For several years, per capita expenditure on prescription [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Nov 2011, 04:29
nice question.
_________________

D- Day December 30 2011. Hoping for the happiest new year celebrations !

Aiming for 700+

Kudo me if the post is worth it

BSchool Forum Moderator
Status: Flying over the cloud!
Joined: 16 Aug 2011
Posts: 912
Location: Viet Nam
GMAT Date: 06-06-2014
GPA: 3.07
Followers: 73

Kudos [?]: 603 [0], given: 44

Re: For several years, per capita expenditure on prescription [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Nov 2011, 08:33
I chose A, new drug will help the manufacture reset the price become more higher. Prohibition on old is ineffective.
_________________

Rules for posting in verbal gmat forum, read it before posting anything in verbal forum
Giving me + 1 kudos if my post is valuable with you

The more you like my post, the more you share to other's need

CR: Focus of the Week: Must be True Question

Manager
Joined: 08 Sep 2011
Posts: 75
Concentration: Finance, Strategy
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 5

Re: For several years, per capita expenditure on prescription [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Nov 2011, 12:58
I choose A, even though not ideal, I feel the other ones are out of scope.
Senior Manager
Joined: 25 Nov 2011
Posts: 261
Location: India
Concentration: Technology, General Management
GPA: 3.95
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 165 [0], given: 20

Re: For several years, per capita expenditure on prescription [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Jan 2012, 20:51
cialit0506 wrote:
For several years, per capita expenditure on prescription drugs in Voronia rose by fifteen percent or more annually. In order to curb these dramatic increases, the ministry of health prohibited drug manufacturers from raising any of their products’ prices. Even though use of prescription drugs did not expand after this price freeze, per capita expenditure for prescription drugs continued to increase by a substantial percentage each year.

Which of the following, if true, most helps to explain why the ministry’s action did not achieve its goal?

A. After price increases were prohibited, drug manufacturers concentrated on producing new medications to replace existing products
B. The population of Voronia rose steadily throughout the period
C. Improvements in manufacturing processes enable drug manufacturers to maintain high profit levels on drugs despite the price freeze.
D. In addition to imposing a price freeze, the government encouraged doctors to prescribe generic versions of common drugs instead of the more expensive brand-name versions
E. After price increases were prohibited, some foreign manufacturers of expensive drugs ceased marketing them in Voronia.

I cannot get my head round the reasonings of the OA. No matter how I look at it, D seems the best answer. If D is true, wouldn’t per capita expenditure of drugs increase?

If D were to be true, govt plan should have succeeded because generic drugs are very cheap compared to company specific patented drugs (until those patents expire).

As per the argument, govt told manufacturers NOT TO INCREASE prices further and it will be applicable only for existing products. As, govt put a restriction on the price of NEW products, companies found making new products is the way to gain profits.
_________________

-------------------------
-Aravind Chembeti

Intern
Joined: 25 Mar 2011
Posts: 29
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 2 [2] , given: 1

Re: For several years, per capita expenditure on prescription [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Jan 2012, 08:58
2
KUDOS
gmat1011 wrote:
sly:)... they found the loophole.

Law says: you can't increase the price.

Businessman: ok. I will manufacture a new product (with slight changes) and put it in the market and charge a high price to begin with - then the price ceiling can't stop me from charging the price I want.

+1.

This is a relatively easy question, mainly due to the other answer choices sort of "suck" for lack of a better word.

We are desperately searching for why? Why is per capita spending still increasing? Whyyyyy?

A. New product doesn't mean price increase. An increase inherently means something exists, then increases. A new product can be set at any price. So, hypothetically, we could have the same number of people, now purchasing new and more expensive products. Hence, per capita spending is still increasing. These basta*** are getting rid of the old products and then creating replacements that are more expensive. Ding Ding Ding - sounds pretty logical, boys and girls...but let's move on.

B. B states population rose, but the stimulus mentions that usage didn't increase. So, who cares and I am still confused.

C. Whoop de doo for these businesses. We are trying to find out why per capita expenditure on these drugs are increasing, even though the usage isn't increasing, nor is the price of the current drugs. But, I will entertain this bull****. Let's assume the costs of the businesses went down from these new manufacturing processes. Terrific. So, these businesses' profits increase! Yay, P = R - C. Yay MBA stuff. So, presumably, we have lower costs, higher profits, but same price. So, uhhhh, why did the spending per capita increase? And why do I care about businesses' profits? I don't. C = irrelevant - leave me alone.

D. This furthers the confusion. So, usage doesn't go up - per the stimulus. And apparently, drugs are now cheaper. However, per capita spending is still increasing. WHAT IS THIS MADNESS?!?!

E. Well isn't this terrific. This answer choice causes me to waste 10 seconds of my test-taking life. Stimulus states: usage doesn't increase. Stimulus also states prices of current drugs do not increase. This answer choice is weak on several levels. What if these foreign manufacturers of drugs NEVER actually sold any of their drugs? Meaning, if they stopped marketing, who gives a sh**? Their products were never purchased in the first place, in other words, their products never had ANY affect on per capita spending! Laugh at this answer choice, roll your eyes, select A and mock the GMAT gods for trying to fool you.

Not. This. Time.

This is a great example of active vs. passive reading. Whenever you read a stimulus, try and attack its holes - rather than read, and hope an answer choice will make sense. I rarely read the question stem prior to the stimulus, yet again, I was an LSATter. It is a waste of time to read something twice . I feel if you attack CR with an active mind, you will perform beautifully. And, have fun with it!

HTH
Manager
Joined: 23 Feb 2012
Posts: 216
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Entrepreneurship
Schools: Said
GMAT 1: 710 Q44 V44
GPA: 2.9
WE: Marketing (Computer Software)
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 48 [0], given: 22

Re: For several years, per capita expenditure on prescription [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Mar 2012, 03:06
Per capita expenditure = (Price x Volume)/ Population

So, for per capita expenditure to rise, any of 3 things have to happen
1) Price increases,
2) Volume increases,
3) Population decreases

Now, let's look at the choices

A) Will come back to this last.

B) Population increased. My formula tells me population can't increase. NOT B

C) High profit levels. Who gives a shit. NOT C

D) Generic drugs. Which means lower prices. My formula tells me prices need to increase. NOT D

E) No more marketing. Who gives a shit. NOT E.

A) That leaves us with A. Simple elimination. Now it could be possible that the new medications were more expensive. Higher prices. Satisfies my formula. Or the medications were not more expensive, but you don't know for sure. So, A is the "best" answer because all other choices are clearly wrong
_________________

If you like it, Kudo it!

"There is no alternative to hard work. If you don't do it now, you'll probably have to do it later. If you didn't need it now, you probably did it earlier. But there is no escaping it."

710 Debrief. Crash and Burn

Manager
Joined: 23 Feb 2012
Posts: 216
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Entrepreneurship
Schools: Said
GMAT 1: 710 Q44 V44
GPA: 2.9
WE: Marketing (Computer Software)
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 48 [0], given: 22

Re: For several years, per capita expenditure on prescription [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Mar 2012, 03:17
DJK wrote:
gmat1011 wrote:
sly:)... they found the loophole.

Law says: you can't increase the price.

Businessman: ok. I will manufacture a new product (with slight changes) and put it in the market and charge a high price to begin with - then the price ceiling can't stop me from charging the price I want.

+1.

This is a relatively easy question, mainly due to the other answer choices sort of "suck" for lack of a better word.

We are desperately searching for why? Why is per capita spending still increasing? Whyyyyy?

A. New product doesn't mean price increase. An increase inherently means something exists, then increases. A new product can be set at any price. So, hypothetically, we could have the same number of people, now purchasing new and more expensive products. Hence, per capita spending is still increasing. These basta*** are getting rid of the old products and then creating replacements that are more expensive. Ding Ding Ding - sounds pretty logical, boys and girls...but let's move on.

B. B states population rose, but the stimulus mentions that usage didn't increase. So, who cares and I am still confused.

C. Whoop de doo for these businesses. We are trying to find out why per capita expenditure on these drugs are increasing, even though the usage isn't increasing, nor is the price of the current drugs. But, I will entertain this bull****. Let's assume the costs of the businesses went down from these new manufacturing processes. Terrific. So, these businesses' profits increase! Yay, P = R - C. Yay MBA stuff. So, presumably, we have lower costs, higher profits, but same price. So, uhhhh, why did the spending per capita increase? And why do I care about businesses' profits? I don't. C = irrelevant - leave me alone.

D. This furthers the confusion. So, usage doesn't go up - per the stimulus. And apparently, drugs are now cheaper. However, per capita spending is still increasing. WHAT IS THIS MADNESS?!?!

E. Well isn't this terrific. This answer choice causes me to waste 10 seconds of my test-taking life. Stimulus states: usage doesn't increase. Stimulus also states prices of current drugs do not increase. This answer choice is weak on several levels. What if these foreign manufacturers of drugs NEVER actually sold any of their drugs? Meaning, if they stopped marketing, who gives a sh**? Their products were never purchased in the first place, in other words, their products never had ANY affect on per capita spending! Laugh at this answer choice, roll your eyes, select A and mock the GMAT gods for trying to fool you.

Not. This. Time.

This is a great example of active vs. passive reading. Whenever you read a stimulus, try and attack its holes - rather than read, and hope an answer choice will make sense. I rarely read the question stem prior to the stimulus, yet again, I was an LSATter. It is a waste of time to read something twice . I feel if you attack CR with an active mind, you will perform beautifully. And, have fun with it!

HTH

This is an interesting way to think through the problem in the heat of the GMAT! +1
_________________

If you like it, Kudo it!

"There is no alternative to hard work. If you don't do it now, you'll probably have to do it later. If you didn't need it now, you probably did it earlier. But there is no escaping it."

710 Debrief. Crash and Burn

Senior Manager
Joined: 12 Mar 2012
Posts: 369
Concentration: Operations, Strategy
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 169 [0], given: 31

Re: For several years, per capita expenditure on prescription [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Mar 2012, 00:18
A is the best choice,
agree with some wonderful explanations above.
_________________

Practice Practice and practice...!!

If there's a loophole in my analysis--> suggest measures to make it airtight.

Manager
Joined: 08 Jun 2011
Posts: 98
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 45 [0], given: 65

Re: For several years, per capita expenditure on prescription [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Apr 2012, 23:06
Is this a Weaken or resolve the paradox question?

It seems to me that it is a resolve since we have two contradicting sets of facts. But what makes this a possibility for a weaken question is that it has a conclusion.

Any help to explain what question type this is?
Re: For several years, per capita expenditure on prescription   [#permalink] 09 Apr 2012, 23:06

Go to page   Previous    1   2   3    Next  [ 54 posts ]

Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
13 Last year, the number of traffic violations per capita 3 27 Jan 2014, 11:18
4 For several years, per capita expenditure on prescription 6 21 Aug 2012, 23:36
14 For several years, per capita expenditure on prescription 11 09 Aug 2012, 01:10
For several years, per capita expenditure on prescription 3 28 Nov 2011, 22:57
Per capita consumption 7 07 Jul 2009, 07:35
Display posts from previous: Sort by

# For several years, per capita expenditure on prescription

 Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group and phpBB SEO Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.