anceer wrote:
Health insurance rates have been steadily increasing in this country for decades. Though health insurance companies paid for a smaller percentage of claims last year than they did ten years ago, the overall rise in the number of claims still means that more money is being paid out, and the companies compensate for this by hiking their rates.
From the information above, it can be inferred that ten years ago
A fewer people made health insurance claims than was the case last year.
B the percentage of health insurance claims that were unpaid was less than last year's percentage.
C more claims were not paid by insurance companies than were not paid last year.
D health insurance companies paid a greater percentage of their claims than they paid twenty years ago.
E profits made by health insurance companies were similar to profits made by health insurance companies last year.
Okay let me first see what the argument over here has to say - Health insurance rates have been STEADILY INCREASING in this country FOR DECADES. Ok so for the past ten years, health insurance rates have been increasing. THOUGH, HIC paid for a SMALLER PERCENTAGE ( aah percentage...now percentage critical reasoning is fun..need to keep "smaller percentage in mind") of claims LAST YEAR than did ten years ago, (LAST YEAR<TEN YEARS ---> % of claims paid) The OVERALL RISE in the NUMBER of claims still means that MORE MONEY is being PAID out and the companies COMPENSATE for this by HIKING THEIR RATES.
This cr is an inference type has a lot to do with numbers. All the words that are capitalized are those which I have to be careful about..Now, let go one by one through each option.
A - hmm may be let me keep this aside
B - hey even this makes sense ...okay so we are discussing percentage... Last year say 30% was paid ---> this means ten years ago the % of claims paid > last yr---->so % of claims paid last year could be anywhere between 31-100% ( for simplicity purpose lets ignore the decimals)
So, 100%-30% = 70% unpaid last year and 100%-(31-100%) ..pick any number for ten years ago, result will be
% of unpaid claims ten years ago < % of unpaid claims last year.
hmm so I keep A and B as maybe
C- aah trick !!! we are speaking about percentage ..not numbers..this is definitely out..
D - twenty years ago ??? I really do not care about that.. What happened ten years ago - is what I really care about
E - no definitely out the argument doesn't even touch the topic of "profits" remotely.
hmm stuck between A and B ..B is a winner..but then A...
lemme go back to the argument ..aah "OVERALL RISE IN CLAIMS"
ok so last year, I claimed for both a tooth extraction and for an appendicitis operation..that makes it two claims from my side.
Or it could be that last year, I claimed for a tooth extraction and my friend claimed for an appendicitis operation.
So, basically from an "overall rise in number of claims" - I can't infer for sure that last year the number of people making a claim was greater than the number of people making a claim ten years ago..It could also be that this year the number of people making a claim has decreased or remained the same but the number of claims per person has increased.. Aah! Nice trick !!
Definitely A is out and B is in
Thus, B is the answer !! :)
Hope, my logic seems right. Let me know if you do not get it or do not agree with it.
Thanks.
Dr. Harshita.
Its very unfortunate that this logic got correct answer. I am very confused with the way analysis is made.
Is it not stating reverse of what is given? last year percentage of paid claims is SMALLER than % claims paid 10 years ago. Why is it assuming reverse? Am i missing something here?