Mr. Primm: If hospitals were private enterprises, dependent on profits

VeritasKarishma nightblade354 gmat1393 workout aragonn generis

Please help me to understand argument and to know where I faltered in PoE.



Claim 1: there would be no teaching hospitals
Evidence 1: high cost of running such hospitals.

Claim 2: teaching hospitals can concentrate more on nonroutine cases.
Evidence 2: medical challenges = best physicians

I need to weaken claim 1 and support claim 2


Out of scope, what doctors command is not our concern.
Who are these doctors - physicians?


If non routine medical care commands a high price, will not running cost of teaching
hospitals go down?


Out of scope, from where do teaching hospitals derive revenue is not our concern at all


Then fewer patients will be coming to the hospital, does nothing to weaken claim 1


Yes I feel this strengthens claim 2. More specialized physicians = more revenue for teaching hospitals from non-routine cases.

Mr. Primm Claim is teaching hospitals are not profitable because they are expensive.

Where as Ms Nakai claim is Teaching hospitals attract best physicians and as a result those hospitals concentrate on non-routine cases.

so Ms Nakai Assumption is by concentrating on non-routine cases Teaching hospitals are able to generate their profits. that is why she disagree with Mr. Primm

Question Stem ask us to strengthen ms Nakai Claim and weaken Mr. Primm Claim.

Looking at answer choice option B is as per our line of thinking and hence IMO is the correct choice.

rest of the option are either out of scope or irrelevant.

Mr. Primm's main point is running cost of teaching cost is too high .
Now, Ms. Nakai is in disagreement with Mr. Primm's point ( as shown by "I disagree")

So we need to find a point that substantiates or is the counter point of Ms. Nikai's counter point to that of Mr. Primm.

Hence .... it would be either 'Teaching Hospitals are not expensive to run'
or 'Although , the running cost of Teaching hospitals are high, the earnings of the teaching hospitals are high as well' .

Option B is in the same line of reasoning as expressed in the second option.
Hence Ans B.

adkikani

If hospitals were private enterprises, dependent on profits for their survival ------ you Should consider this condition too.

2nd it is very important to have a mind set before reading choices. This can be achieved by a fair amount of pre-thoughts. Best way is vizulise that situation. Here are my pre-thoughts.

Before going any further, What is wrong with this picture? --- True on high cost front, but if high profit then high investment usually not a trouble. if I have to break above argument i will think on these lines. Let see what Nakai thinks.

In universities, Some proffesors do research and this research takes a lot of investments. Still why universities make such investments? well this brings raputation. If successful, a lot many papers. in best case a nobel prize. and so a lot of money from many source as charity. My point is in same way, nonroutine cases also doing some good and on lines of money good.

B. Sophisticated, nonroutine medical care commands a high price. ---- well, all I can see a flow of money and it is lucrative to physicians + hospitals.

E. The modern trend among physicians is to become highly specialized. ---- Here is a problem, How you know, to achieve this goal they need a teaching hospital ? To reach at this conclusion, you need a lot many assumptions and those are out of question scope.

B is the best choice.Hope it is helpful to you.

If you don't mind , I'll try to explain.. actually your reasoning is sound..but the reasoning you used for E , should actually (exactly the same) be used for B.

Mr. Primm: If hospitals were private enterprises, dependent on profits for their survival, there would be no teaching hospitals, because of the intrinsically high cost of running such hospitals.

- P says if hospitals were for-profit , then they wouldn't be teaching hospitals too. Why? P says costs for such hospitals would be substantially high. And if a hospital cares about profit why would it opt for such costly ( cost to hospital) programs? Reasoning is good right?? But there is a major leap here. P makes hisconclusion on the basis of PROFIT and supports it with "evidence of costs"
But profit= revenue- profit.
What about the revenu?? What if the training somehow (directly or indirectly) actually brings in a lotttt of revenue? .

Ms. Nakai: I disagree. The medical challenges provided by teaching hospitals attract the very best physicians. This, in turn, enables those hospitals to concentrate on nonroutine cases.

- N says Training lures best physicians. This leads to non routine cases. Now P is talking about profits and existence of training for profit hospital and N is talking about training>luring> non routine. So there is gap in B's disagreement. N does not address the issue of costs or profits.. she just says that something happens in training hospital. But how is that related to P's argument?? She doesn't explicitly mention any connection between best physicians or non routine with profits or costs. Then how is her disagreement sound?? That's what we have to do . We have to link her argument with P's argument and then N's argument will make sense and her disagreement prominent.


Yes I feel this strengthens claim 2. More specialized physicians = more revenue for teaching hospitals from non-routine cases.[/quote]
You assumed that specialised physicians = more revenue from non routine. Are we told non routine = greater revenue??nope. So how is this Choice even helping N's argument?? N's argument is still not addressing the profits and costs issue of P ! This choice says trend is physicians want to become specialised.so?? Why should Primm care?? His argument still stands and N's disagreement does not make any sense !! ( Period !)



Commands high PRICE ( not costs).. If non routine commands high price ( or they are costly TO patients..) then it MAY attract more revenue. And as per N's argument the focus is actually moving towards non routine. She must have assumed (in order to disagree with P) that non routine focus is somehow related to profits and costs. Only then does her argument make sense.

Your reasoning for B:
If non routine medical care commands a high price, will not running cost of teaching
hospitals go down?
How did you reason that high price means running cost of teaching goes down? I mean this is your OWN ASSUMPTION. There is no such relation given to us. It may very well mean that high price may increase revenue and therefore overall profit without affecting teaching costs... You made a huge OWN relation.

Your reasoning for D:
Yes I feel this strengthens claim 2. More specialized physicians = more revenue for teaching hospitals from non-routine cases.
More specialist physians = more revenue?? Where did you get that from?? Argument does not give us any relation as such.. here again you have made your OWN relation .

Please be vary of such OWN ASSUMPTIONS AND RELATIONS.
If you read passage closely , then you'll see the 2 major gaps. In P's ( about teaching bringing any money or not)
And N's disagreement with eveidence that does not address P's main claim.

Posted from my mobile device

PRIVATE ENTERPRISE ---> PROFITS ---> OBSTACLE ---> HIGH OPERATIONAL COSTS ----- SOLUTION ? PRETHINKING: SOMETHING MUST BE OF GREAT VALUE TO CREATE DEMAND ON SERVICES PROVIDED BY PRIVATE ENTERPRISE IN ORDER TO STRENGTHEN CLAIM.

So in other words we need to make an enterprise a profitable business.

Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen Ms. Nakai’s attempt to refute Mr. Primm’s claim?

(A) Doctors at teaching hospitals command high salaries. ( out of scope straight away )

(B) Sophisticated, nonroutine medical care commands a high price. ( correct as per my prethinking )

(C) Existing teaching hospitals derive some revenue from public subsidies. ( out of scope - we need PROFITS )

(D) The patient mortality rate at teaching hospitals is high. ( we are not concerned about mortality )

(E) The modern trend among physicians is to become highly specialized. ( out of scope - totally irrelevant - we need to make an entriprise a profitable business )

I don't whether I am right, but I will go with C.

(A) Doctors at teaching hospitals command high salaries. - as primm says...HIGH COST.

(B) Sophisticated, nonroutine medical care commands a high price. - again HIGH COST.

(C) Existing teaching hospitals derive some revenue from public subsidies. - teaching hospitals get revenue. This is the best refute to primm. Getting revenue balances against high cost even if it exists. Keep.

(D) The patient mortality rate at teaching hospitals is high. - irrelevant.

(E) The modern trend among physicians is to become highly specialized. - irrelevant. What is the advantage to the hospital as a whole ? It doesn't counter the " high cost" blame.

IMHO C.

Sent from my Lenovo K53a48 using GMAT Club Forum mobile app

Mr. Primm:
1) no teaching as it involves high cost and such hospitals depend on their profits.
2) if profit is high enough > teaching hospitals

Ms. Nakai:
1) teaching hospitals attract the very best physicians > concentrate on nonroutine cases>more profit

Now coming to the options :

(A) Doctors at teaching hospitals command high salaries. If this true then the profit will shrink at much faster rate and teaching hospital will never come into operation. Hence rejected.

(B) Sophisticated, nonroutine medical care commands a high price. It seems this option can increase the chance of having more profit. Keep it.

(C) Existing teaching hospitals derive some revenue from public subsidies. Irrelevant.

(D) The patient mortality rate at teaching hospitals is high. Irrelevant

(E) The modern trend among physicians is to become highly specialized. Okay? So what? Does it ensure that profits will rise? No. More or less irrelevant.

Correct option B.

­

(A) The high salaries of doctors in teaching hospitals actually weakens Ms Nakai's attempt as high salaries might lead to a decline in the profitability of private hospitals.

(B) CORRECT. Teaching hospital --> higher non routine cases --> higher price --> higher profitability

(C) Irrelevant

(D) No mention of mortality rate in the argument. Hence, this answer choice is completely out of scope.

(E) No mention of specialization of the physicians in the argument. Hence, this answer choice is out of scope.­

It's obvious that we are supposed to pick B. But, I refused to choose it because it just doesn't make sense.

Prim argues that teaching hospitals were they to be private enterprises that depend on profits would not exist in the first place b/c of the intrinsically high cost? Well, what would be responsible for those high costs? Surely physician salaries.

Nakai's argument is silly because she side-steps the cost issue altogether, she's addressing medical complexity...really they are talking past each other.

Nakai's response is a flaw in the argument in my view. Let's look at the answer choices. Specifically, a and b. They both operate along the same lines. i.e. High salaries for physicians at teaching hospitals. Well, surely that would strengthen Primm's argument. Expensive non-routine care would also strengthen Prim's argument. How would it strengthen the idea that teaching hospitals allow physicians to focus on non-routine care? Is the argument here something to the effect of - their pockets are filled so they don't have to worry about their financial problems?

This is a weird argument.

GMATNinja VeritasKarishma thoughts?

Mr. Primm: If hospitals were private enterprises, dependent on profits for their survival, there would be no teaching hospitals, because of the intrinsically high cost of running such hospitals.

Ms. Nakai: I disagree. The medical challenges provided by teaching hospitals attract the very best physicians. This, in turn, enables those hospitals to concentrate on nonroutine cases.

Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen Ms. Nakai’s attempt to refute Mr. Primm’s claim?

(A) Doctors at teaching hospitals command high salaries.

(B) Sophisticated, nonroutine medical care commands a high price.

CR arguments given will not be perfect and hence the need for intervention by the test taker to strengthen them/identify the assumption etc. They could very well give such an argument and ask you to point out the flaw.

Here you have to strengthen Nakai's claim.

Primm: Teaching hospitals are expensive so if they were privatised and told to fend for themselves, they would not exist. (Supposedly they exist because Govt supports their expenditure)

Nakai: Wrong. Teaching hospitals attract best doctors so they focus on non routine cases.

Now, there is a gap. We don't know how non routine cases will help teaching hospitals get financial support.

Option (B) helps in that.
(B) Sophisticated, nonroutine medical care commands a high price.
So then the teaching hospital will be able to foot its bills and survive even without outside support. This helps Nakai's claim.

(A) Doctors at teaching hospitals command high salaries.
This just tells us why teaching hospitals are expensive. It doesn't do much to our argument. We already know that they are expensive. What we are interested to know is whether they can shoulder their expenditure from their own earnings.

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.