Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
George Bernard Shaw wrote: " That any sane nation, [#permalink]
16 Mar 2009, 04:06
This post received KUDOS
This post was BOOKMARKED
51% (02:15) correct
49% (01:38) wrong based on 462 sessions
HideShow timer Statistics
George Bernard Shaw wrote: " That any sane nation, having observed that you could provide for the supply of bread by giving bakers a pecuniary interest in baking for you, should go on to give a surgeon a pecuniary interest in cutting off your leg is enough to make one despair of political humanity."
Shaw's statement would best serve as an illustration in an argument criticizing which of the following?
(A) Dentists who perform unnecessary dental work in order to earn a profit (B) Doctors who increase their profits by specializing only in diseases that affect a large percentage of the population (C) Grocers who raise the price of food in order to increase their profit margins (D) Oil companies that decrease the price of their oil in order to increase their market share (E) Bakers and surgeons who earn a profit by supplying other peoples' basic needs
The question hisnges on the word pecuniary which means of or pertaining to money.
“That any sane nation, having observed that you could provide for the supply of bread by giving bakers a pecuniary interest in baking for you," this means bakers will only bake bread for you if it in there money making interests. Making bread is profitable.
"should go on to give a surgeon a pecuniary interest in cutting off your leg is enough to make one despair of political humanity.” This means doctors interests in providing you medical attention is linked making them money and not becaue it is the right thing to do, so if cutting off your leg would make them more money then they would cut more legs off not because it medically necessary but becaus it is profitable, which is a sad commentary on human nature.
(B) Doctors who increase their profits by specializing only in diseases that affect a large percentage of the population - This staes the doctor is motivated by money to specialize in certain diseases but it this does not mean he is motivated to misdiagnose
(A) Dentists who perform unnecessary dental work in order to earn a profit - A goes to the heart of the matter perfoming medical procedures for the sake of profit and not medical need.
Why is not B? The argument here is that as bread caters to all, doctors are only speacilizing in diseases that cater to all. I am not sure how performing unnecessary surgery goes with the criticism.
My will shall shape the future. Whether I fail or succeed shall be no man's doing but my own. I am the force; I can clear any obstacle before me or I can be lost in the maze. My choice; my responsibility; win or lose, only I hold the key to my destiny - Elaine Maxwell
The key in such convoluted questions is to not get intimidated by the language - instead try to work out the logic used. G.B.Shaw [great character btw ] made the argument criticizing the causal argument made by the nation's Govt.
The nation's govt realized that if bakers have a monetary incentive of profiteering in baking bread, the nation would be well fed. G.B.Shaw criticizes this causal logic and extrapolates it in the case of surgeons who could be given a monetary incentive for cutting legs [red flag: extreme logic used, possible clue for answer]. He obviously fears that surgeons would go around cutting legs even in the cases that don't require this.
The Question asked is "Shaw's statement would best serve as an illustration in an argument criticizing which of the following?
Now proceed to the options: A) Says some dentists would do unnecessary dental work if given a profit incentive. This is most parallel to "surgeons who cut legs in cases that are not required. "
B) C) D) E) talk about OT or distortions like "raising mkt share", "increasing the profit margin (as opposed to creating one in the first place) " etc. etc.
You have to have a darkness...for the dawn to come.
Damn tough question because of convoluted language.Let me give a try
I'll go with A
The argument, in a nut shell, says that just because someone gives some incentives for bakers to produce bread, doesn't mean that incentives should be given to surgeons to cut your leg off. So, in effect, it is criticizing the surgeons' work.
So, the answer choice that follows the same reasoning for criticism as offered in the surgeon's case is correct
A, by saying that Dentist's job is unnecessary works in the same fashion
I think the point that is made here is that while a baker will supply bread if there is a monetary reason, it is unethical for a doctor to reason the same way.
I would have gone with A. But A says that the doctor is ripping you off which is not really true. The doctor prefers to treat specific illness (here sarcastically cutting off the leg) because of profit.
I went with A and this was my reasoning behind choosing this .. The language is pretty convoluted and i could not figure out the analogy . I could only trim it down to Doctors being unreasonable in their demands ... I was torn between A & E , but went with A on a gut feeling .. _____________
I am a GMAT rookie and have been preparing for about a week now .. Can you anyone advise on how to handle such questions ,which take some time analyzing ?
Easy "A" - The question is masquerading by switching terms. "profit margin" instead of profit etc, "increase market share" instead of profit. And then A Vs B - but there is a word "unnecessary" which separates the real answer.