Jay: Of course there are many good reasons to support the expansion of

VeritasKarishma GMATNinja - can one infer the following

1) Is this what Jay is saying, if i were to put it into an equation ?
Savings from preventive care < costs of frequent care because of implementing more preventive care

2) If my equation is accurate above, is this the inference from Jay ?
Hence expanding preventive care is currently economically loss making or economically break even.


3) Is the equation accurate with regards to what option D is saying, if i were to put it into a mathematical equation
economics gain outside health care > [savings from preventive care - costs of frequent care = economic loss or economically breaking even]

Jay
Preventive care leads to long life.
Long life leads to very high urgent care cost
Preventive care does not lead to overall societal economic gain.

Sunil
You are wrong.
Society suffers loss when productive people suffer from preventive diseases.


Assumption made by Sunil:

(A) Those who receive preventive care are not more likely to need urgent care than are those who do not receive preventive care

He doesn't assume that people with preventive care need more urgent care.

(B) Jay intends the phrase "economic gains" to refer only to gains accruing to institutions within the health care system.

Not correct. He doesn't assume that Jay is referring to health care system only. He knows that Jay is referring to "societal economic gain" which includes all gain. That is the reason he talks about other productive gain from people who get preventive care.

(C) Productive members of society are more likely than others to suffer preventable illnesses.

He doesn't assume this. He talks about the loss the economy faces when productive members suffer preventable illnesses.

(D) The economic contributions of those who receive preventive medical care may outweigh the economic losses caused by preventive care.

Correct. Sunil is saying that preventive care may lead to overall societal economic gain because productive people who get preventive medical care contribute to the economy. So he is assuming that their contributions may outweigh the economic losses of preventive care.

(E) Jay is incorrect in stating that patients who receive preventive medical care are long-lived.

Sunil doesn't assume that they don't live long.

Answer (D)

Hi VeritasKarishma GMATNinja - As part of the recommended CR drills, when analyzing wrong answers -- i tend to ask myself "what should the question stem have asked instead in order to select this wrong answer"

Just wondering, if you think the question should have been instead in order to select the wrong answer.


A = Example of weakener for Jay. This answer would be accurate.
B = What is an assumption for Jay. This answer would be accurate.
C = What strengthens Sunil. This answer would be accurate.

Thoughts ?

I am not sure who or what recommended you this strategy but it is a waste of time. Many options are completely irrelevant to the argument and to suit those, you would need a brand new argument. They need to be just discarded.
Yes, sometimes while analysing, you will find that an option is a strengthener when you are looking for a weakener or an inference when looking for an assumption and it certainly helps to point that out to yourself to know that you have understood the argument really well but that is not true for most incorrect options.

Option (A) is not a weakener for Jay. The argument does not discuss people who get preventive care vs people who do not get it. It discusses the economic impact of people who get preventive care.
Option (B) is not assumption for Jay. He is talking about economic impact, not just health industry impact.
Option (C) is not a strengthener for Sunil. He is not talking about productive members vs unproductive members.
As I said, most options will be irrelevant.

Got this one correct.

BUT

Even though I read explanations 100 times, I cannot understand how B is wrong...

Sunil's First Sentence: Your argument fails because you neglect economic gains outside the health care system

Option B: Jay intends the phrase "economic gains" to refer only to gains accruing to institutions within the health care system.

If B is not the case (negate) then Sunil's first sentence would be wrong

Any idea on what I'm missing???????

Maldonado VeritasKarishma has said it in the most self explanatory way. B is not an "assumption". An assumption is something that is not explicitly stated in the passage. Sunil clearly tells Jay this his scope of "economic gains" is skewed/too narrow. Sunil does not assume this fact. He knows this fact.

Hope this helps!

Thank you!

GMATNinja EducationAisle VeritasKarishma could you help me with (B)

Sunil starts by saying "Your argument fails because you neglect economic gains outside the health care system" So isn't he assuming that Jay is talking about the gains within the health care system?

Your confusion is understandable. The difference is subtle.

Given argument:

Jay: Of course there are many good reasons to support the expansion of preventive medical care, but arguments claiming that it will lead to greater societal economic gains are misguided. Some of the greatest societal expenses arise from frequent urgent-care needs for people who have attained a long life due to preventive care.

Sunil: Your argument fails because you neglect economic gains outside the health care system: society suffers an economic loss when any of its productive members suffer from preventable illness.


Consider an alternative argument:

Jay: Of course there are many good reasons to support the expansion of preventive medical care, but arguments claiming that it will lead to greater economic gains for health care industry are misguided. Some of the greatest health care expenses arise from frequent urgent-care needs for people who have attained a long life due to preventive care.

Can Sunil now say that your argument fails because you neglect gains outside health care? No. Jay is talking about the health care industry only and its gains and losses. Now his argument doesn't fail. The only relevant topic of this argument are the economic gains of the healthcare industry.
In the original argument, Sunil says that your argument fails only because he knows that Jay is talking about societal economic gains i.e. Jay intends to talk about overall economic gains and hence, Jay missed a point.
Hence (B) is not correct.

@VeritasKarishma GMATNinja

Hey everyone,

I still couldn't understand why C isn't the right answer.

Just to summarize of what I understood from the Question stem is that -
Jay says that there's 'no economical gain' in expanding the preventive medical care because the ones who are gaining from this care are people who got treated and living an extended life.
Sunil counters his argument by stating that Jay isn't considering the situations outside health and mentioned an example that says there's an economic gain in terms of how 'productive people' serve the society and that's an 'economic gain'.

Answer C says - Productive members of society are more likely than others to suffer preventable illnesses.

If I negate this - Unproductive members of society are more likely to suffer preventable diseases. In that case, it means that there's no economic gain and the argument falls apart.
Am I missing anything here?

Thank you!

You can check out this link for a breakdown of the passage, and this link for a more detailed comparison of (C) and (D). But just in case, here are a few more thoughts on why (C) is wrong.

Let's start by analyzing Sunil's response to Jay.

Sunil points out that "society suffers an economic loss when ANY of its productive members suffer from preventable illness." So if ANY productive member of society suffers from a preventable illness, Sunil thinks there will be "economic loss." This counters Jay's idea that linking preventive medical care to "great societal economic gains" is misguided.

In other words, Sunil points out that economic loss occurs when ANY productive member of society gets a preventable illness. So presumably, preventive medicine will reduce economic loss, thus countering Jay's argument.

Let's now consider (C):


Is this an assumption of Sunil's argument? In other words, is it absolutely necessary for Sunil's argument to hold up?

Not at all. As long as the economic gains caused by preventive care outweigh the losses, Sunil's argument holds up. But that doesn't require that productive members of society are more likely than others to suffer preventable illness. Maybe non-productive members are more likely to suffer from preventable illness (as you say in your analysis)? Maybe both groups are equally likely? Either way, Sunil's argument isn't damaged.

Keep in mind that even if non-productive members of society get more preventable illness than productive members, that doesn't mean that economic losses will outweigh economic gains. It could be that the economic gains from treating productive members of society far outweigh the costs of treating unproductive members, even if there are more unproductive members with preventable illnesses.

After all, we have no idea exactly how much money is gained or lost through the preventive care of different types of people. But as long as ENOUGH productive members of society get preventable illnesses (however many that might be), the economic gains of preventive care could outweigh the losses, and Sunil's argument holds up.

In other words, since it isn't absolutely required by Sunil's argument, (C) isn't an assumption, and we can throw it out.

I hope that helps!

Hi avigutman - i was wondering if this is an assumption



My understanding as, this is a key assumption for Sunil and Jay as well

Sunil does make that assumption, jabhatta2. If productive members of society never suffer from any preventable illnesses, then this never happens:
society suffers an economic loss when any of its productive members suffer from preventable illness.
I don't see that Jay made this assumption, though.

Hello experts, MartyTargetTestPrep AndrewN

The problem with me is that I am not able to understand such kind of passages.
I don't know whats going on, I have faith on my reasoning, but what it could do when I can't even understand the passage? I was not even timed for this one. took me 8 minutes, still wasn't sure exactly whats going on.

There are so many things to process simultaneously- expension, "preventable" medical care, social gain etc etc..

when a passage is simple (Language) atleast I can understand whats going on, even if its a hard one.

So, what should I do in order to improve my understanding?
Not all but there are some arguments that I don't understand and thats serious because then, If I am not able to understand easy-meduim ones, I will not reach to the desired score.

Hello, dcoolguy. In the moment, it is okay not to understand everything about a passage or a given answer choice. In review, though, you want to take the time to cover all the bases of the question: passage, question stem, and answer choices. If you took 8 minutes or so working through everything, then you are on the right track. Why not take notes on the words, phrases, or sentences that made you uncomfortable and look them up? The goal is to set yourself up for success the next time you may come across a similar type of passage, question, or answer choice. If you need to, pick up some high-quality English-language reading material, the type that serves as the basis for many of these official questions—e.g., The New York Times. You can grow accustomed to reading dense passages and improve your vocabulary by exposing yourself to similar kinds of writing on the side, especially when there are no questions attached and you can relax. Do not worry about the difficulty of a question you see in practice, or about the consequences of missing a lower-level question on the day of the exam. Such thoughts will not help you focus on the question in front of you. Stick to the basics. Whatever methods you have developed for assumption questions, or for CR questions in general, should apply just as well to this question as to any other, or you need to refine those methods. If healthcare as a topic is the hurdle, or if English on the whole is a broader challenge, then start reading more English-language articles on healthcare. (I would advise you to avoid academic journals, though, since academic jargon is not the type of language that shows up on this exam in more than a word or two here or there, typically with a definition attached.) Finally, there is always the community dialogue to lean on, Expert responses and all. Sometimes when I do not fully understand an answer choice or a line from a passage, I will look to see if someone has touched on my concerns in the thread. And of course, you can always solicit advice if you do not find your answer.

It will be interesting to see what Marty may have to say. The more feedback you get, the better, at least in my view. Thank you for thinking to ask.

- Andrew

Hi Experts,

I have gone through all the above posts, I'm still not able to understand why Option B is incorrect. When Sunil states "Your argument fails because you neglect economic gains outside the health care system" doesn't Sunil assume that "Jay intends the phrase "economic gains" to refer only to gains accruing to institutions within the health care system" even though Jay states "greater societal economic gains ".

Thanks

Does Jay *intend* to use 'economic gains' to refer only to gains within the healthcare system? Do we really think when Jay says 'economic gains' he actually only means 'economic gains to the healthcare system?'

I don't think so. Jay even uses the word 'societal.'

Jay's argument is "We will not see SOCIETAL economic gains due to an expansion in preventative care, because SOCIETY spends so much on healthcare for people who had preventative care." Sunil points out that Jay is neglecting to think about gains outside the health care system, but does not believe Jay INTENDED to use the phrase 'economic gain' to mean 'economic gains within healthcare.'

B is tricky, because the *FLAW* in Jay's argument is that he thinks an overall societal gain won't happen because a gain in HEALTHCARE won't happen, overlooking the chance that the gains could occur elsewhere. But B says this flaw was INTENDED, when in fact, it's a possibility Jay has OVERLOOKED.