nightblade354 generis pikolo2510 GMATNinja VeritasPrepKarishmaI am stumped between D/E.
Quote:
The mayor boasts that the average ambulance turnaround time, the time from summons to delivery of the patient, has been reduced this year for top-priority emergencies. This is a serious misrepresentation. This “reduction” was produced simply by redefining “top priority.” Such emergencies used to include gunshot wounds and electrocutions, the most time-consuming cases. Now they are limited strictly to heart attacks and strokes.
In year 2018 (for e.g) Average ambulance turnaround time ie time from the place where incident occurred (e.g. gunshot)
to hospital has been reduced as per Mayor.
Author responds to this by saying:
This is a serious misrepresentationOn what basis does he make this claim: the reduction of time has no single definition. Earlier (say in year 2017) this time
was used to denote emergencies as gunshot wounds and electrocutions. Now is 2018, reduction time refers to heart attacks and strokes
Quote:
Which one of the following would strengthen the author’s conclusion that it was the redefinition of “top priority” that produced the reduction in turnaround time?
I need to strengthen author's claim and oppose Mayor's claim that there is actual reduction in timing for ambulance turnaround.
Quote:
(A) The number of heart attacks and strokes declined this year.
As per me, this weakens the claim of author. If cases of heart diseases are less, than
Mayor's claim becomes stronger, not author's. Note that in present year, the 'priority'
has shifted from
gunshot wounds and electrocutions to
heart attacks and strokesQuote:
(B) The mayor redefined the city’s financial priorities this year.
When did Mayor redefine the priorities is irrelevant to this argument.
Quote:
(C) Experts disagree with the mayor’s definition of “top-priority emergency.”
So what? Even if they disagree, this does not affect author's claim in any manner. Reject it.
Quote:
(D) Other cities include gunshot wound cases in their category of top-priority emergencies.
(E) One half of all of last year’s top-priority emergencies were gunshot wounds and electrocution cases.
Are we not looking for an answer choice that says other cities if include
heart attacks and strokes in 'top
priority' emergencies, then author's claim is strengthened?
Why is underlined portion of (E) relevant to argument, when we need more cases pertaining to
heart attacks and strokessince we are talking about present and not past year.
(D) is way out of scope. We do not care about other cities one bit. We just care about our city. This is a classic trick on CR questions. They will provide information that seems good, but has no bearing on the information given and does not help our case (for example, the city across the river, the neighbor next door, the other class, ect.). Unless we are comparing, these are irrelevant to the argument.