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:
The mayor boasts that the average ambulance turnaround time, [#permalink]
30 Mar 2004, 10:09
100% (00:00) correct
0% (00:00) wrong based on 1 sessions
HideShow timer Statistics
The mayor boasts that the average ambulance turnaround time, the time from summons to delivery of the patient, has been reduced this year for top-priority emergencies. This is a serious misrepresentation. This reduction was produced simply by redefining 'top priority.' Such emergencies used to include gunshot wounds and electrocutions, the most time-consuming cases. Now they are limited strictly to heart attacks and strokes.
Which one of the following would strengthen the author's conclusion that it was the redefinition of 'top priority' that produced the reduction in turnaround time?
(A) The number of heart attacks and strokes declined this year.
(B) The mayor redefined the city's financial priorities this year.
(C) Experts disagree with the mayor's definition of 'top-priority' emergency.
(D) Other cities include gunshot wound cases in their category of top-priority emergencies.
(E) One half of all of last year's top-priority emergencies were gunshot wounds and electrocution cases. _________________
I believe if E is right then folowing explanation suits.
Basically the author is saying that the mayor changed the definition to Priority to include cases that can be handled easily. If one can prove that the cases which are complex constitute major portion of all the cases then in a way author's argument is strengthened. This forms the assumption of the authors argument.
Probably the measure should be measured for a long time to see the effectiveness and the long time could mean that 1 year sufficient. In that case taking prev year's figures into account would be OK.
So it's between A and E.
E) Let G=gunshot E=electrocution H=heart attack S=stroke
If (G+E) represent 1% of TPEs then the exclusion of G+E has no bearing on the redefinition of the term 'top priority' and (E) would therefore strenghten the author's conclusion
A) The number of heart attacks declined this year but it still doesn't give their proportion vis-a-vis (G+E). No matter how much 'H' increased or declined by, we have to know that ratio in order to know its impact on total 'top priority' and be able to determine whether it strengthens or weakens the argument.
Furthermore, we should only be concerned with the figures last year because it is last year that the figures were misrepresented. A can thus further be weakened by adding this year's figure which has no bearing on how last's year figures could be misrepresented _________________
Check out this awesome article about Anderson on Poets Quants, http://poetsandquants.com/2015/01/02/uclas-anderson-school-morphs-into-a-friendly-tech-hub/ . Anderson is a great place! Sorry for the lack of updates recently. I...