adkikani
nightblade354 generis GMATNinja VeritasPrepKarishma Skywalker18 pikolo2510I feel (A) is irrelevant to argument and not a strengthener.
May I know your views?
Quote:
Compared to non-profit hospitals of the same size, investor-owned hospitals require less public investment in the form of tax breaks, use fewer employees, and have higher occupancy levels. It can therefore be concluded that investor-owned hospitals are a better way of delivering medical care than are non-profit hospitals.
Author concludes that investor-owned hospitals (IO h) are a better way of delivering medical care than are non-profit hospitals (NP h).
Why does he think so?
Because IO h:
- They need less investment so they can use more for productivity of machines, better pay to doctors, etc.
- They can perform same work with less employees, may be because of better automation.
- Their wards are usually more occupied than NP h at any given time.
Quote:
Which one of the following, if true, most undermines the conclusion drawn above?
I need to undermine above conclusion.
Quote:
(A) Non-profit hospitals charge more per bed than do investor-owned hospitals.
I agree on some level that now fewer number of patients will go to NP h.
But wait: we are dealing with doubting to claim that there is a better way to treat people at IO h than NP h.
This option choice does not affect my argument since I am not concerned with if fewer people now go to
NP h, I am concerned with IO h may not deliver medical attention to patients.
adkikani , good instincts.
A is irrelevant. The issue, as you point out, is
better medical care - ("a better way . . . to deliver medical care").
Your perspective is decisive. Stay with it.
I will hedge, preemptively. (I will anticipate arguments from people who disagree with you.)
Option A is 98% irrelevant, 2% strengthener (pretend for a moment)
Maybe Option A strengthens the conclusion because:
If non-profit hospitals charge more per bed, investor-owned hospitals either are or may be less expensive for patients.
And IF less expensive, then . . . then nothing.
Full stop. We cannot infer "less expensive = better care or better way to deliver medical care."
Cheaper is not necessarily better.
You expressed and captured that logic very well right here:
Quote:
This option choice does not affect my argument since I am not concerned with if fewer people now go to
NP h, I am concerned with IO h may not deliver medical attention to patients
You identified the right issues and reasoned accurately about an option that is not obvious. +1
I have a small caution, a caution I issue to almost everyone with CR and LR.
I am not sure what some of your extra material is for. You wrote:
- They need less investment in the form of tax breaks -
so they can use more for productivity of machines, better pay to doctors, etc. - They can perform same work with less employees,
may be because of better automation. - Their wards are usually more occupied than NP h at any given time.
Yellow highlight
might be speculation.
On a "weaken" question, try not to speculate about reasons that the claim might be true.
On the other hand, you might be trying to anticipate how the argument is weak.
I am not sure. Just in case, whatever those extra bits are . . .
We are trying to weaken the claim, not supply the reasons why it is true.
Small matter. I just want to be sure.
Nice work. Analysis of A was spot on, and the issue is a fairly subtle one.