For-profit Social Organizations serve far fewer citizens

Hi Guys,

Updating the post with OA and OE

The argument concludes that for-profit Social Organizations serve a greater proportion of financially disadvantaged citizens than do non-profit Social Organizations. This conclusion is based on the fact that citizens at for-profit Social Organizations draw a disproportionate share of federal and state financial aid. The argument assumes a link between the proportion of aid received and the proportion of financially disadvantaged citizens enrolled. In so doing, it assumes that there are not other possible reasons for the disproportionate aid distribution.

A) Public non-profit Social Organizations and private non-profit Social Organizations serve a similar proportion of financially disadvantaged citizens.

The conclusion makes a claim about the differences between for-profit and non-profit Social Organizations. Differences among non-profit Social Organizations – such as public vs. private – are irrelevant to the argument.

B) For-profit Social Organizations do not engage in fraudulent practices to obtain unneeded federal and state financial aid in order to in help the people they serve.

Correct. One alternative reason that might explain the disproportionate aid distribution is that for-profit Social Organizations engaged in fraudulent practices to obtain unneeded financial assistance for the citizens they serve. If this were true, then much of the aid was distributed based not on the actual financial situation of the citizens but on the ability of Social Organizations to defraud federal and state governments. This answer choice asserts that this was NOT in fact the case, thereby eliminating this alternative explanation and highlighting a key assumption on which the argument rests.

C) The number of citizens that get benefited from federal and state financial aid at for-profit Social Organizations is greater than the number of citizens that get benefited from federal and state financial aid at non-profit Social Organizations.

The argument's claim is centered on proportions. The actual number of citizens receiving aid at for-profit vs. non-profit Social Organizations is irrelevant to the conclusion.

D) For-profit Social Organizations are of similar residential and educational quality as non-profit Social Organizations.

The relative residential or educational quality of for-profit vs. non-profit Social Organizations lies outside the scope of the argument, which is focused solely on differences in financial aid distribution.

E) The majority of citizens that are served at for-profit Social Organizations do not have a past criminal record or a bad credit history.

The issue addressed by the argument is the amount of financial aid distributed to citizens at two types of institutions. Whether citizens have a bad credit history or a criminal record is immaterial to the claim made in the argument.


Vercules

elizebethsunny

CR answers can't rely on that kind of leap. Quality doesn't actually tell anything about costs. Two organizations might have identical costs while providing vastly different quality of service. Also, the argument is not talking about operating costs, but about the value of aid obtained for clients.

(As a side note, all of this makes much more sense in the original question, which is from our CAT exams and is specifically about universities obtaining aid for their students. For some reason, the OP decided to rip the entire question and change a few words. Why bother?)

­
You are correct, as always! This is emberassing that I did not catch one of the question writers submitting a ripped-off question. 
I have removed it from GMAT Club tests. Thank you so much for pointing it out!

-BB 

IMO B.

Facts:
For-profit Social Organizations serve fewer citizens than non-profit.
For-profit Social Organizations draw a disproportionate share of federal and state financial aid.

Conclusion:
For-profit Social Organizations cater to a greater proportion of financially disadvantaged citizens.

A) Not relevant to the conclusion. Actually this option weakens the conclusion.
B) CORRECT.
C) The passage says: "For-profit Social Organizations draw a disproportionate share".
If "The number of citizens that get benefited from federal and state financial aid at for-profit Social Organizations is greater than the number of citizens that get benefited from federal and state financial aid at non-profit Social Organizations.", the share would not be disproportionate.
D) Out of scope.
E) Out of scope as well.

this question does not seem correct

i feel that the assumption of this argument should have been: For-profit Social Organizations do not spend money that they receive for purposes other than helping financially disadvantaged citizens

the conclusion is: for-profit Social Organizations cater to a greater proportion of financially disadvantaged citizens than do non-profit Social Organizations.

premise 1: For-profit Social Organizations serve far fewer citizens whom they serve than either public or private non-profit ones

premise 2: relative to non-profit Social Organizations, for-profit Social Organizations draw a disproportionate share of federal and state financial aid, such as food grants and guaranteed loans, for the people they serve

i fail to understand as how B can be answer here? even if For-profit Social Organizations do engage in fraudulent practices to obtain unneeded federal and state financial aid then also the argument will hold

on the other hand if we say that For-profit Social Organizations do spend money that they receive for purposes other than helping financially disadvantaged citizens THEN we cannot make the conclusion that for-profit Social Organizations cater to a greater proportion of financially disadvantaged citizens than do non-profit Social Organizations

Premise: num. of citizen For-profit Social Organizations < num. of citizen non-profit Social Organizations. for-profit Social Organizations draw a disproportionate share of federal and state financial aid.

Conclusion: it must be, then, that for-profit(fp) Social Organizations cater to a greater proportion of financially disadvantaged citizens than do non-profit(np) Social Organizations.

Pre-thinking: they are targeting less num of citizen, with disproportionate aid from federal . lets first see the meaning of disproportionate. it means not in proportion. which is possible when it is either too small or too big. lets take too small first. suppose for 10 people they need $1000 but they are getting $500. what about the difference. well either manage or arrange from somewhere, legal or illegal. if it is too much then it seems like not a problem.

with these thoughts lets take a look in options.

The conclusion above depends on which of the following assumptions?

A) Public non-profit Social Organizations and private non-profit Social Organizations serve a similar proportion of financially disadvantaged citizens. this is opposite of what is said in premise.

B) For-profit Social Organizations do not engage in fraudulent practices to obtain unneeded federal and state financial aid in order to in help the people they serve. --- on the line of pre-thinking

C) The number of citizens that get benefited from federal and state financial aid at for-profit Social Organizations is greater than the number of citizens that get benefited from federal and state financial aid at non-profit Social Organizations --- for this they need greater amount. this could be an option. lets negate it. if not then ??? nothing happened to conclusion.

D) For-profit Social Organizations are of similar residential and educational quality as non-profit Social Organizations. --- OOS

E) The majority of citizens that are served at for-profit Social Organizations do not have a past criminal record or a bad credit history. ----- OOS

Why is D out of scope?

If the quality is different, then their expenses will also be different. Hence the for profit organization may need more funds for serving the same number of people than the not for profit?
What is the flaw in my reasoning?

Option B is incorrect - because even with the negated version of option B the conclusion still holds. Even if FPSO engages in fraud to take unneeded financial aid to help the people they serve. At the end of the day, they ARE STILL SERVING their target people - who may very well be financially disadvantaged and may be more in proportion to the financially disadvantaged people served by the NPOs with their legal and just money. So conclusion still holds. All the other options are incorrect assumptions as well.

So this question is busted. Don't waste your time and move on to the next one!