A study compared a sample of Swedish people older than 75 who needed

Ans: E {IMO}

A. A companion study found that among children needing special in-home care, the amount of formal assistance they received was roughly the same in Sweden as in Israel. (children are not the point of discussion here) X

B. More Swedish than Israeli people older than 75 live in rural areas where formal assistance services are sparse or nonexistent. (This goes against the finding. If Swedish people live in area where formal assistance services are sparse or nonexistent then in survey they must receive less but result of the survey is opposite.) X

C. Although in both Sweden and Israel much of the funding for formal assistance ultimately comes from the central government, the local structures through which assistance is delivered are different in the two countries. (This just says that structure is different but doesn't say anything about how it affects the services) X

D. In recent decades, the increase in life expectancy of someone who is 75 years old has been greater in Israel than in Sweden. (as per this again average has to be higher for Israel but result shows otherwise.) X

E. In Israel, people older than 75 tend to live with their children, whereas in Sweden people of that age tend to live alone. ( here because in Isarel older people tend to live with the family they receive informal Services on higher side and this makes Sweden's formal services on higher side on average.) Suffi.
_________________

Look at the portion of your response in bold: without adding any assumptions to the answer choice, you can't determine whether the elderly in Sweden receive more formal care than the elderly in Israel. Now, we know that they do (because it is stated in the passage), but we need an answer choice that shows why they receive more care. If an answer choice does not provide that missing link, then it cannot be the right answer. You need something that specifically addresses the discrepancy.

Let's compare the above explanation of (C) to the correct answer, (E):


This answer specifies what is different about each group: the elderly in Israel tend to live with their children, while the elderly in Sweden tend to live alone. Using the the passage's definition of informal assistance ("provided by family and friends"), we can now conclude that the elderly in Israel receive more informal care, and thus would require less formal care.

The main difference between (C) and (E) is that (E) provides specific justification for the finding (that the Swedish use more formal care), while (C) only opens the possibility that there is a difference in the two programs, without providing information that actually explains the fact that the Swedish population receives more formal assistance.

As far as tips go: this really isn't sexy or exciting, but doing well on CR mostly boils down to reading the question and passage with precision. As you go through the answer choices, remind yourself that you are looking for an explanation that fills in the information gap and addresses the actual discrepancy, EXACTLY as it's phrased in the passage.

I hope this helps!
_________________

A. A companion study found that among children needing special in-home care, the amount of formal assistance they received was roughly the same in Sweden as in Israel. - irrelevant.

B. More Swedish than Israeli people older than 75 live in rural areas where formal assistance services are sparse or nonexistent. - opposite of what we are looking for.

C. Although in both Sweden and Israel much of the funding for formal assistance ultimately comes from the central government, //the local structures through which assistance is delivered are different in the two countries.// - thus, the functioning of the local structures might be different in a positive or negative way, which leads to the difference. Looks good. Keep.

D. In recent decades, the increase in life expectancy of someone who is 75 years old has been greater in Israel than in Sweden. - ok. But, since the premise states that the sample tested, was similar, so we cannot assume any difference in number of people of the nature of the sample. It is tempting. But, often these kind of tempting options are traps in which I have taken several times. So, thus time I won't and see what proceeds.

E. In Israel, people older than 75 tend to live with their children, whereas in Sweden people of that age tend to live alone. - irrelevant.

Thus, C is best.


Sent from my Lenovo K53a48 using GMAT Club Forum mobile app

I disagree with choice E beeing irrelevant, more people living with their childern indicates a potential for a larger degree of informal support (provided by the children due to the proximity), therefore a the potential demand for formal support could be smaller as children already take care of some of the issues which might lead Swedish elderly people to seek support!

With regards to C, as it was mentioned in the original passage that the systems in both countries are the same with regards to comprehensivness I assume that this goes both for the federal as well as for the regional level.

Hope this helps.

Best regards,
Chris
_________________

IMO E.

Since people living alone will be receiving less of informal help, therefore they must be depending more on formal help.

Premise:
Fact1- a study of Swedish people older than 75 who needed in-home assistance with a similar sample of Israeli people.
Fact2- The people in the two samples received both informal assistance, provided by family and friends, and formal assistance, professionally provided. --- Which means that both the group of people received same care in all possible ways.
Fact3- Sweden and Israel have equally well-funded and comprehensive systems for providing formal assistance.

Conclusion:
the study found that the people in the Swedish sample received more formal assistance, on average, than those in the Israeli sample.

Pre-thinking:
So why Swedish sample received more formal assistance? Well for understanding this thing completely one must understand that for living, one need equal amount of assistance, no matter in which form it is coming. Which means if one is getting a type of assistance more then one must be getting other type of assistance lesser. As conclusion stated that Swedish sample received more formal assistance this means they are getting lesser assistance from family and friends. on the other hand Israel people are getting less formal assistance, which means more of the assistance from family and friends.

Which of the following, if true, does most to explain the difference that the study found?

A. A companion study found that among children needing special in-home care, the amount of formal assistance they received was roughly the same in Sweden as in Israel. ---- this study is not about children. out of scope.

B. More Swedish than Israeli people older than 75 live in rural areas where formal assistance services are sparse or nonexistent. --- if so then only family and friends assistance is available. but also it break down every thing, if considered true. so this one is not explaining the conclusion.

C. Although in both Sweden and Israel much of the funding for formal assistance ultimately comes from the central government, the local structures through which assistance is delivered are different in the two countries. --- how there two type of assistance are given is not the concern here.

D. In recent decades, the increase in life expectancy of someone who is 75 years old has been greater in Israel than in Sweden. ---- out of scope.

E. In Israel, people older than 75 tend to live with their children, whereas in Sweden people of that age tend to live alone. --- onr the line of pre-thinking.

ARGUMENT CONSTRUCTION:
Two samples taken for study.
The sample is collection of people above 75 Years of age from two different countries.
The similarity in the two samples is that
(a) both the samples ( from two diif countries) require help at home.
(b) this help is provided personally by family / friends and professionally by govt.
(c) the funding to provide home assistance is similar in both the countries.

Results of Study:
Irrespective of so many similar conditions more formal help provided in Swedish sample than in Israeli sample.

One way to tackle a Paradox question is to pre-think on
(a) Alternate Explanation
(b) If its a plan then Improper implementation of plan
(c) Improper Comparison.

Lets see if we can give alternate explanation to finding of study.
What if some conditions existed that demanded more home assistance from professorial care to Swedish people than to Israeli People.


Lets Evaluate the answer choices and find a reason to reject each incorrect choice. .

A. A companion study found that among children needing special in-home care, the amount of formal assistance they received was roughly the same in Sweden as in Israel.
Incorrect
This talks about a different study and different set of people altogether. The sample is all children while the sample in question is of people older than 75.

B. More Swedish than Israeli people older than 75 live in rural areas where formal assistance services are sparse or nonexistent.

Incorrect. This actually accentuates the paradox.
Probably the sample of Swedish considered in study are from rural areas, and in such places formal assistance is non-existence. Then how was that the Swedish people got more formal assistance than Israeli.

C. Although in both Sweden and Israel much of the funding for formal assistance ultimately comes from the central government, the local structures through which assistance is delivered are different in the two countries.
Incorrect

If we were to analyze this portion "the local structures through which assistance is delivered are different in the two countries. " that would help us evaluation the choice.

Ok, local structures could be different, but how can we conclusively make the point that the difference in structure led to the findings in the study. " different structure" is a broad word from which any inferences can be drawn in either favor or against the results of study.

D. In recent decades, the increase in life expectancy of someone who is 75 years old has been greater in Israel than in Sweden.
Incorrect
This statement does nothing to actually resolve our curiosity that the question threw at us. All we know that study has considered a sample whose subject were people over 75 years of age. Now country Y having better life expectancy of the group considered in sample no where relates the paradox that we have at hand.

E. In Israel, people older than 75 tend to live with their children, whereas in Sweden people of that age tend to live alone.
Correct: Two Reasons for this being correct .
First ,We have eliminated all the incorrect answers and are left with only one, so this must be a right answer.
Second, this option tells us talks about living conditions of the two groups considered in sample. How does this resolve the paradox.
It says Israeli people older than 75 ( ok this is the sample of people considered in study )live with children, so they probably get home assistance from personal means more than professional means
Sweden people of that age ( age 75 years and old) tend to live alone.So to provide home assistance probably professional help is required.
Ok This explains the paradox
_________________

A study compared a sample of Swedish people older than 75 who needed in-home assistance with a similar sample of Israeli people. The people in the two samples received both informal assistance, provided by family and friends, and formal assistance, professionally provided. Although Sweden and Israel have equally well-funded and comprehensive systems for providing formal assistance, the study found that the people in the Swedish sample received more formal assistance, on average, than those in the Israeli sample.

Which of the following, if true, does most to explain the difference that the study found?

A. A companion study found that among children needing special in-home care, the amount of formal assistance they received was roughly the same in Sweden as in Israel.

B. More Swedish than Israeli people older than 75 live in rural areas where formal assistance services are sparse or nonexistent.

C. Although in both Sweden and Israel much of the funding for formal assistance ultimately comes from the central government, the local structures through which assistance is delivered are different in the two countries.

D. In recent decades, the increase in life expectancy of someone who is 75 years old has been greater in Israel than in Sweden.

E. In Israel, people older than 75 tend to live with their children, whereas in Sweden people of that age tend to live alone.


BID (Boil It Down): Swedes receive more formal assistance than Israelis

Facts To Reconcile
1) Swedes and Israelis have equally good systems for formal assistance for in-home needs for older people.
2) The Swedes received more formal assistance.

The Goal: Find an option that explains why the two groups don’t receive equal amounts of formal assistance.

Choice E nails it. Since people in Israel are more likely to live with their children, of course they are going to have greater opportunity for informal care. If family members are living with these 75+ year olds in Israel, of course they are going to have more informal care. It would be incidental because they are not as dependent on formal services, so it’s not surprising then that of course Israelis would, on average, receive less formal care. This option resolves the seeming discrepancy.

Choice A is Out of Focus. We’re not dealing with children, and any information about children is irrelevant to the discussion of an imbalance in formal care for older people.

Choice B is a 180. It actually provides a reason why Swedes would have LESS formal care than Israelis, not more.

Choice C points out a difference that has no obvious impact on the frequency of formal care. How does the difference in structure/delivery process of formal care in each country affect the amount of formal assistance received? It doesn’t.

Choice D touches on expectancy/ the total number of people who might receive care, but that does not impact the discrepancy between levels of formal care.

_________________

GMATNinja

Do you have any tips on handling traps like C? It requires an additional assumption that because of the differences in structure, Sweden receives more formal assistance. Otherwise, it does not signify whether the level of assistance is the same or not.

I've seen a lot of answer choices like this and always choose them... Are there ways to avoid this trap?

Not satisfied with option (E).
It is not established that the more formal assistance any sample receives, the fewer informal assistance he/she would get. Formal and informal assistance are not mutually exclusive. In other words, the possibility is still open that any sample receives a great number of informal assistance and formal assistance at the same time. In l’s case, subject could receive more formal assistance than S does, even if he/she lives with children.

I understand that, after eliminating other options, (E) is the only ‘rather’ reasonable one left. But it is not convincing enough to be marked even as a Contender.

I am still not sure about this question. The study found that Swedish people receive more formal assistance on average than Israeli people even though the program providing it is equally well funded. This to me means that per person spending for Swedish people is more than for Israeli. Hence either Swedish people have more money for the program or lesser people are participating in the program. We know the former isn't true hence lesser number of people are participating in the program in Sweden.

A - Irrelevant
B - If more Swedish people live in rural areas where formal assistance is sparse, which means the number of people receiving formal assistance is lesser hence the average formal assistance is more. I think B does explain the difference in study.
C - Irrelevant
D - Irrelevant
E - This statement shows the lesser people in Israel receive formal assistance as they are helped by family. This to me does not explain the difference in the study at all.

I am stumped. Can someone please explain what is faulty in my reasoning for B and E?

The questions asks, "Which of the following, if true, does most to explain the difference that the study found?"

You've said yourself that (E) the only reasonable choice available. That makes it a perfectly suitable answer to the question that we were given.

Wanting the most reasonable answer to choice to go further — to be more convincing, to more fully explain the paradox (or weaken the argument, or prove the conclusion, and so forth) is a pitfall you'll want to avoid. We're not looking for a PERFECT answer. Just the best one.

(E) does more than any other answer choice to explain the difference, so keep it. It's really that simple, even if it's not very satisfying.
_________________

Can someone explain why C is not a preferred choice here? Or the assumption that different structures impacts the disbursement incorrect?

We've explained why (E) is the correct answer in this post, take a look and see if that answers your question.

As for your assumption, it's POSSIBLE that the different structures impact the disbursement of the money required for formal assistance but we can't tell whether this is the case from the given information.

Also, this assumption doesn't help you explain WHY there is a difference in the amount of formal assistance. (C) shows there could be a difference between the two systems but doesn't explain why the Swedish receive more formal care than the Israelis. From this, (C) can't be the answer.

(E), on the other hand, provides a potential explanation for the finding that Swedish people use more formal care, so (E) is the correct answer.

I hope that helps!
_________________

Dear Experts,
I chose wrongly D.
Here is my thinking process before choosing D: the greater in life expectancy leads to the greater number of people who are older than 75. Because average assistance receipt = total formal assistance/ number of people, more people who are older than 75, the less average total formal assistance receipt that those people get. This is the case of Israel in this question. ( Israel sample received less formal assistance, on average, than those in the Sweden sample.)

Where is my reasoning wrong ?
Thank you

You can run into dangerous territory trying to build an argument by creating numbers that fit an imaginary scenario. You're much more likely to arrive at the correct answer if you focus on the meaning of the text.

In this question, we're trying to explain WHY there is a difference in the amount of formal assistance given in each country.

(D) tells us:

This does NOT tell us that there will be a greater NUMBER of people over 75 years old in Israel than in Sweden. This doesn't even tell us that life expectancy is higher in Israel than in Sweden.

(D) tells us that the people in Israel who are over 75 have seen a bigger increase in their life expectancy than the people who are over 75 in Sweden. As an example, this COULD mean that the Israeli life expectancy has increased from 76 to 86 but the Swedish life expectancy has only increased from 84 to 87. However, we should not use these numbers as there's no way of telling whether they are correct. Also, we have no idea how many people over the age of 75 are currently living in each country.

We also can't say that Sweden and Israel have the same amount of money to spend on formal care. The passage tells us both systems are "equally well funded" but we can't say that means they both have $x to spend on formal care. Different size populations will have different care needs and, therefore, "equally well funded" does not necessarily mean they have the same amount to spend.

If we look at the meaning of (D), knowing that Israel has seen a greater increase in life expectancy for those over 75 than Sweden has does nothing to explain WHY people over 75 in Sweden receive more formal care than those in Israel. This is why (D) is not the answer to this question.

Compare this to (E):

This answer tells us what is different in each group: the elderly in Israel tend to live with their children, while the elderly in Sweden tend to live alone. Using the passage's definition of informal assistance ("provided by family and friends"), we can now conclude that the elderly in Israel receive more informal care, and thus would require less formal care.

This directly addresses WHY there is a difference in the amount of formal care given in each country and does this better than all the other choices -- this is why (E) is the answer to this question.

I hope that helps!
_________________

GMATNinja

Q1) When I read the phrase "Although Sweden and Israel have equally well-funded and comprehensive systems for providing formal assistance "

My interpretation of that sentence was governments in both countries spend perhaps 5 billion annually (it can be any amount really) to provide formal assistance towards it's elderly - it is something each government provides as a service towards its citizens and budgets for the service are the same for each country (5 billion annually)

Is that a fair interpretation ? If not, why not.

Q2) When I read the next phrase the study found that the people in the Swedish sample received more formal assistance, on average, than those in the Israeli sample.

I thought we were comparing the level of services received between
-- elderly in Sweden who receive formal training
vs
-- elderly in Israel who receive formal training

I did not think the above phrase referred to any elderly who received informal assistance (and hence picked C)

Why is this not a fair interpretation ?

jabhatta2, your fist interpretation is correct. But remember that overall we're comparing the Swedish people (aged more than 75) who need in-home assistance to a similar group in Israel. Remember, our entire sample needs in-home assistance. Now upon comparison we see that Swedish samples gets more formal assistance as compared to the Israeli sample even though the formal assistance programs in both the countries are well funded. What could be driving this difference? Obviously, the informal assistance.

As for C - The delivery structure is different. So what? How exactly do they differ? If you were to tell me that one has a better delivery structure than the other then I would consider this choice. Just being different doesn't mean the efficiency in delivery is impacted. Hence, this choice is useless. That being said, I would like to know why you think C is the correct choice.

I'm no expert but happy to discuss this further while you wait for an expert's reply.

A study compared a sample of Swedish people older than 75 who needed in-home assistance with a similar sample of Israeli people. The people in the two samples received both informal assistance, provided by family and friends, and formal assistance, professionally provided. Although Sweden and Israel have equally well-funded and comprehensive systems for providing formal assistance, the study found that the people in the Swedish sample received more formal assistance, on average, than those in the Israeli sample.

P : fund for formal assistance in Israel = Sweden
P : actual receive of formal assistance Sweden > Israel
-> implying that informal assistance Israel > Sweden

Which of the following, if true, does most to explain the difference that the study found?


A. A companion study found that among children needing special in-home care, the amount of formal assistance they received was roughly the same in Sweden as in Israel.
-> Irrelevant, study of children is not relevant to the argument.

B. More Swedish than Israeli people older than 75 live in rural areas where formal assistance services are sparse or nonexistent.
-> This option exacerbates the discrepancy. Only if the statement is given in the opposite direction, saying that more Israeli people live in rural areas where formal assistance is sparse, this option can resolve the contradiction.

C. Although in both Sweden and Israel much of the funding for formal assistance ultimately comes from the central government, the local structures through which assistance is delivered are different in the two countries.
-> Irrelevant, the source is not important.

D. In recent decades, the increase in life expectancy of someone who is 75 years old has been greater in Israel than in Sweden.
-> Irrelevant, the discrepancy is only about difference in receiving time not how many people are getting older.

E. In Israel, people older than 75 tend to live with their children, whereas in Sweden people of that age tend to live alone.
-> Correct, this option implies that Israeli people are getting more informal care.