Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Nov 2007:30 AM PST
-08:30 AM PST
Learn what truly sets the UC Riverside MBA apart and how it helps in your professional growth
Nov 2211:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Do RC/MSR passages scare you? e-GMAT is conducting a masterclass to help you learn – Learn effective reading strategies Tackle difficult RC & MSR with confidence Excel in timed test environment- Nov 23
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease. 
Nov 2510:00 AM EST
-11:00 AM EST
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors.
19 May 2018, 04:47
Kudos
Bookmarks
OE Magoosh:
The credited answer is (D). If the most at-risk patients, the patients most likely to die, are brought to the one hospital with all the specialists, then that hospital could do a fantastic job saving many of those high-risk patients, and even with this, enough of these patients could die to inflate the mortality rate of that particular hospital. Thus, the consultant's recommendation would result in closing the hospital with the highest concentration of specialists --- very problematic! This very seriously calls into question whether the consultant's recommendation is the best way to deal with this situation.
Choice (A) lets us know that at least one of the privately run hospitals is bad, but this is not one of the hospitals that is under consideration for closing --- only the seven county hospitals. This fact is irrelevant, so choice (A) is incorrect.
Choice (B), if anything, would strengthen the consultant's recommendation --- shutting that one hospital would get rid of what seems to be the worst hospital AND save the county the most money in the process! We want a weakener, not a strengthener. Choice (B) is incorrect.
The county needs to reduce its own costs. If, as a result of shutting one county hospitals, more people went to private hospitals and drove up costs there, that wouldn't be the county's problem. This is irrelevant, so choice (C) is incorrect.
Choice (E) tells us that other counties are different --- all have six or fewer county hospitals, but Lawrence County currently has seven. In general, this might suggest that closing one hospital would be a satisfactory move, but we don't know whether some other factor (population, geographic size, road conditions, etc.) make Lawrence County meaningfully different from the other counties. Either, this fact is irrelevant, or it's a mild strengthener, and we need a weakener. Choice (E) is incorrect.
06 Oct 2018, 05:27
Kudos
Bookmarks
chetan2u has raised several questions on this question. I too agree with him. The patients, which are at most-risk, are brought to or visit the hospital with specialized staff. How does it relate to fatal mortality rate?
This pattern: hospital <--> at-risk patients <--> mortality rate is used to frame many questions and, unfortunately, some of them are questionable even though they are created by respectable prep companies.
So, again, there is no source comparable to OG.
This pattern: hospital <--> at-risk patients <--> mortality rate is used to frame many questions and, unfortunately, some of them are questionable even though they are created by respectable prep companies.
So, again, there is no source comparable to OG.
saukrit
Joined: 05 Jul 2018
Last visit: 11 Nov 2025
Posts: 378
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 325
Status:Current student at IIMB
Affiliations: IIM Bangalore
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Technology
Schools: IIMB EPGP'22 (A)
GMAT 1: 600 Q47 V26
GRE 1: Q162 V149
GPA: 3.6
WE:Information Technology (Consulting)
Products:
18 Oct 2018, 09:40
Kudos
Bookmarks
(A) lets us know that at least one of the privately run hospitals is bad, but this is not one of the hospitals that is under consideration for closing --- only the seven county hospitals. This fact is irrelevant, so choice (A) is incorrect.
(B), if anything, would strengthen the consultant's recommendation --- shutting that one hospital would get rid of what seems to be the worst hospital AND save the county the most money in the process! We want a weakener, not a strengthener. Choice (B) is incorrect.
(C) The county needs to reduce its own costs. If, as a result of shutting one county hospitals, more people went to private hospitals and drove up costs there, that wouldn't be the county's problem. This is irrelevant, so choice (C) is incorrect.
(D) If the most at-risk patients, the patients most likely to die, are brought to the one hospital with all the specialists, then that hospital could do a fantastic job saving many of those high-risk patients, and even with this, enough of these patients could die to inflate the mortality rate of that particular hospital. Thus, the consultant's recommendation would result in closing the hospital with the highest concentration of specialists --- very problematic! This very seriously calls into question whether the consultant's recommendation is the best way to deal with this situation. So Choice D is the Answer
(E) tells us that other counties are different --- all have six or fewer county hospitals, but Lawrence County currently has seven. In general, this might suggest that closing one hospital would be a satisfactory move, but we don't know whether some other factor (population, geographic size, road conditions, etc.) make Lawrence County meaningfully different from the other counties. Either, this fact is irrelevant, or it's a mild strengthener, and we need a weakener. Choice (E) is incorrect.
(B), if anything, would strengthen the consultant's recommendation --- shutting that one hospital would get rid of what seems to be the worst hospital AND save the county the most money in the process! We want a weakener, not a strengthener. Choice (B) is incorrect.
(C) The county needs to reduce its own costs. If, as a result of shutting one county hospitals, more people went to private hospitals and drove up costs there, that wouldn't be the county's problem. This is irrelevant, so choice (C) is incorrect.
(D) If the most at-risk patients, the patients most likely to die, are brought to the one hospital with all the specialists, then that hospital could do a fantastic job saving many of those high-risk patients, and even with this, enough of these patients could die to inflate the mortality rate of that particular hospital. Thus, the consultant's recommendation would result in closing the hospital with the highest concentration of specialists --- very problematic! This very seriously calls into question whether the consultant's recommendation is the best way to deal with this situation. So Choice D is the Answer
(E) tells us that other counties are different --- all have six or fewer county hospitals, but Lawrence County currently has seven. In general, this might suggest that closing one hospital would be a satisfactory move, but we don't know whether some other factor (population, geographic size, road conditions, etc.) make Lawrence County meaningfully different from the other counties. Either, this fact is irrelevant, or it's a mild strengthener, and we need a weakener. Choice (E) is incorrect.
