GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 18 Sep 2019, 19:23

### GMAT Club Daily Prep

#### Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# Humanitarian considerations aside, sheer economics dictates that

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

VP
Joined: 30 Jan 2016
Posts: 1149
Humanitarian considerations aside, sheer economics dictates that  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 Aug 2019, 08:12
11
00:00

Difficulty:

75% (hard)

Question Stats:

52% (02:04) correct 48% (02:30) wrong based on 292 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Humanitarian considerations aside, sheer economics dictates that country X should institute, as country Y has done, a nationwide system of air and ground transportation for conveying seriously injured persons to specialized trauma centers. Timely access to the kind of medical care that only specialized centers can provide could save the lives of many people. The earnings of these people would result in a substantial increase in country X’s gross national product, and the taxes paid on those earnings would substantially augment government revenues.

The argument depends on the assumption that

(A) lifetime per-capita income is roughly the same in country X as it is in country Y
(B) there are no specialized trauma centers in country X at present
(C) the treatment of seriously injured persons in trauma centers is not more costly than treatment elsewhere
(D) there would be a net increase in employment in country X if more persons survived serious injury
(E) most people seriously injured in automobile accidents in country X do not now receive treatment in specialized trauma centers

_________________
Non progredi est regredi
Manager
Joined: 05 May 2019
Posts: 74
Schools: Tuck, NYU Stern, Yale, LBS, INSEAD, ISB, MBS
GPA: 3
Humanitarian considerations aside, sheer economics dictates that  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 Aug 2019, 13:54
To those of you wondering why E is wrong,
It merely restates the premise.

Alternatively, if you really didn't notice the restatement.
This is an Assumption question. So you'll need an unstated fact for the Argument to hold.

Quote:
(E) most people seriously injured in automobile accidents in country X do not now receive treatment in specialized trauma centers

If you consider E to be an assumption, negate it and you'll find out that the negated version will actually disregard the premise, not the conclusion.

In other words, the negated statement would look like - Most injured people have access to specialized treatment.
This only breaks the premise -
1. Need for improvement in transportation.

The negated version of E doesn't affect the conclusion.
___________________________________________________________

Manager
Joined: 13 Apr 2019
Posts: 107
Location: India
Concentration: Marketing, Operations
GPA: 3.5
WE: General Management (Retail)
Re: Humanitarian considerations aside, sheer economics dictates that  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Aug 2019, 08:07
Akela wrote:
Humanitarian considerations aside, sheer economics dictates that country X should institute, as country Y has done, a nationwide system of air and ground transportation for conveying seriously injured persons to specialized trauma centers. Timely access to the kind of medical care that only specialized centers can provide could save the lives of many people. The earnings of these people would result in a substantial increase in country X’s gross national product, and the taxes paid on those earnings would substantially augment government revenues.

The argument depends on the assumption that

(A) lifetime per-capita income is roughly the same in country X as it is in country Y
(B) there are no specialized trauma centers in country X at present
(C) the treatment of seriously injured persons in trauma centers is not more costly than treatment elsewhere
(D) there would be a net increase in employment in country X if more persons survived serious injury
(E) most people seriously injured in automobile accidents in country X do not now receive treatment in specialized trauma centers

Missing supporter element of cost aspect leads to C&D. Apply negation test on C&D. D would break the conclusion as the GNP would decrease.

Although the way it is worded, it seems as if the author is talking about the employment generated in the transportation sector. nightblade354 comments ?
VP
Joined: 30 Jan 2016
Posts: 1149
Re: Humanitarian considerations aside, sheer economics dictates that  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Aug 2019, 11:51
1
Manhattan Prep explanation

What does the Question Stem tell us?
Necessary Assumption

Break down the Stimulus:
Conclusion: It makes economic sense for X to create a system for transporting seriously injured people to special trauma centers.
Evidence: Without prompt attention at a special trauma center, many of these people would die. If we save them, they can continue to earn money --> increasing the GNP and govt. tax revenue.

Any prephrase?
This is tricky because we're just arguing dollars and cents: is it a net gain or net loss if we spend money to build a system to save the lives of these seriously injured people?

The ideas we should mostly be fighting are subsidiary conclusions. If we save their lives, who says they will go back to earning money? Maybe they will be too disabled by their injuries to earn anything or as much (author assumes at least some of these saved people will be able to go back to work).

Let's say they DO go back to work. How would their earnings increase the GNP? It's not like when you die, your earnings go to the grave with you. It's possible that if you can't return to your job, someone else (who was previously unemployed) swoops in and replaces you at your job. That means that GNP wouldn't increase. The same \$50,000 job is producing the same \$50,000 in earnings, whether those go to the injured person or the previously unemployed replacement. (The author assumes that at least some of the earnings these injured people were making would cease to exist. She assumes those earnings wouldn't just transfer to SOMEONE ELSE who would inherit the job.)

The augmented tax revenue is essentially the same issue. Tax revenue only goes up if we have earnings we wouldn't have had otherwise. There are also comparison issues here in the sense that different people, making the same earnings, will have to pay different amounts of tax to the govt. depending on the other variables of their tax return (dependents, deductions, etc.).

Finally, let's say we DO save people's lives and the earnings those people make really WOULD HAVE DISAPPEARED had we not saved them ... is it now a net gain in \$ and cents? We don't know, without knowing how much money we need to SPEND in order to save these people and their earnings. (The author assumes that the extra earnings and tax revenue created by these injured people would more than offset the costs we expend to save them).

D

A) No comparison to Y needs to be made. "roughly the same" is fairly extreme.

B) Red flag: "No" centers exist. The author doesn't have to assume this. We're debating building transportation systems to GET us to trauma centers. It's not crucial whether trauma centers exist or not yet, but the author seems to be assuming they do exist.

C) Red flag: comparison. But also Green Flag: ruling out language "is NOT more costly". This is relevant, since it's about money. If we negate it, we get "treatment at trauma centers is more costly than treatment elsewhere". That's hardly surprising. Does it hurt the author's argument? Not without us knowing how much money we're "saving" by saving these people's lives. The author's conclusion is simply that this proposed system would be a net fiscal gain. She's allowed to believe that there would be many new expenditures, as long as the new revenues (earnings and tax dollars) are enough to offset those.

D) Not great, but similar to one of our prephrases. This is like saying "the author assumes that if we let the injured people die, then their job dies with them." She is acting like whatever they were earning at their job would no longer be a part of the GNP or tax revenue. We objected by saying, "What if someone unemployed just took over the dead dude's job?" In that case, whether the injured person lives or dies has no effect on employment, earnings, tax revenue. This answer choice is ruling out that objection. If we negated it, we would get that "if we save people, we would NOT have more jobs/earners than otherwise." That crushes the argument because it was only through those "saved" jobs/earnings that the author thought we could pay for this system.

E) Red flag: "most". And where the heck did "AUTO accidents" come from?

Takeaway/Pattern: The correct answer isn't written perfectly. We really need to assume "there would be a net increase in EARNINGS if more people survived serious injury". But we'll have to take the best answer available.
_________________
Non progredi est regredi
Re: Humanitarian considerations aside, sheer economics dictates that   [#permalink] 23 Aug 2019, 11:51
Display posts from previous: Sort by