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

 It is currently 22 Sep 2019, 05:15

### 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

# Political Candidate: Government subsidized prescription drug

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 28 Apr 2008
Posts: 95
Political Candidate: Government subsidized prescription drug  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 Jul 2008, 11:02
1
23
00:00

Difficulty:

75% (hard)

Question Stats:

59% (02:38) correct 41% (02:35) wrong based on 881 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Political Candidate: Government subsidized prescription drug plans that would allow individuals significant choice in determining their benefits and costs are deceptively appealing to numerous stakeholders. However, buying prescription drug coverage, like buying health insurance coverage, is not like buying a car. The consumer cannot predict his or her future health needs. Moreover, the administrators of the choice-based drug plans under consideration are allowed to change the drugs they cover and the prices they charge at any time; this renders informed consumer choice meaningless and makes securing appropriate coverage a crap shoot. Older and disabled individuals, the predominant consumers of government subsidized prescription drug plans, should be offered drug coverage alternatives that do not force them to gamble with their health.

In the argument above, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

A.The first is a fact that the candidate argues against; the second is the ultimate claim that the candidate supports.
B.The first is an observation which the candidate acknowledges as true but to which he is ultimately opposed; the second is a claim that the candidate uses as evidence to support his ultimate position.
C.The first is an observation that the candidate acknowledges as true but unfortunate; the second is an assertion that the candidate makes to support his ultimate position.
D.The first is an observation that the candidate argues against; the second is an observation that the candidate supports.
E.The first is an observation made by the candidate; the second is an assertion that the candidate ultimately opposes.
Director
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 574

### Show Tags

12 Jul 2008, 11:27
1
yavasani wrote:
Political Candidate: Government subsidized prescription drug plans that would allow individuals significant choice in determining their benefits and costs are deceptively appealing to numerous stakeholders. However, buying prescription drug coverage, like buying health insurance coverage, is not like buying a car. The consumer cannot predict his or her future health needs. Moreover, the administrators of the choice-based drug plans under consideration are allowed to change the drugs they cover and the prices they charge at any time; this renders informed consumer choice meaningless and makes securing appropriate coverage a crap shoot. Older and disabled individuals, the predominant consumers of government subsidized prescription drug plans, should be offered drug coverage alternatives that do not force them to gamble with their health.

The buyer may or may not the same diseases in future. Therefore, rather than subsidizing the prescription drug plans, government should offer some coverage alternatives.

In the argument above, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

A.The first is a fact that the candidate argues against; the second is the ultimate claim that the candidate supports.

Wrong. The ultimate claim is that this is not an effective way. Goverment should some alternative drug coverage plan.

B.The first is an observation which the candidate acknowledges as true but to which he is ultimately opposed; the second is a claim that the candidate uses as evidence to support his ultimate position.

Close but wrong. The observation is true government plan but author is against it. But author is using "The consumer cannot predict his or her future health needs" assertion to make the cliam that this is not a good plan. Use some alternative...drug coverage plan

C.The first is an observation that the candidate acknowledges as true but unfortunate; the second is an assertion that the candidate makes to support his ultimate position.

Correct. Second "consumer cannot predict his or her future health needs" is the asertion that author is making to support his claim.

D.The first is an observation that the candidate argues against; the second is an observation that the candidate supports.

Wrong. Second is not an observation.

E.The first is an observation made by the candidate; the second is an assertion that the candidate ultimately opposes.

Wrong. Author is not opposing second.

IMO C but very confused between B and C
Manager
Joined: 23 May 2006
Posts: 246

### Show Tags

12 Jul 2008, 11:45
IMO C. The first is an observation that the candidate acknowledges as true but unfortunate; the second is an assertion that the candidate makes to support his ultimate position.

Political Candidate: Government subsidized prescription drug plans that would allow individuals significant choice in determining their benefits and costs are deceptively appealing to numerous stakeholders. The candidate agrees that the drug plan would allow individuals significant choice (TRUE) but it is deceptively appealing (unfortunate).

The consumer cannot predict his or her future health needs.. This is an assertion because the next sentence strats with "moreover" and instroduces more seertion. "Moreover, the administrators of the choice-based drug plans under consideration are allowed to change the drugs they cover and the prices they charge at any time;

Conclusion in the passage is: this renders informed consumer choice meaningless and makes securing appropriate coverage a crap shoot. Older and disabled individuals, the predominant consumers of government subsidized prescription drug plans, should be offered drug coverage alternatives that do not force them to gamble with their health.
Director
Joined: 10 Sep 2007
Posts: 797

### Show Tags

12 Jul 2008, 11:50
IMO D.
But C is also really close.
Director
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 574

### Show Tags

12 Jul 2008, 12:02
x97agarwal wrote:
IMO C. The first is an observation that the candidate acknowledges as true but unfortunate; the second is an assertion that the candidate makes to support his ultimate position.

Political Candidate: Government subsidized prescription drug plans that would allow individuals significant choice in determining their benefits and costs are deceptively appealing to numerous stakeholders. The candidate agrees that the drug plan would allow individuals significant choice (TRUE) but it is deceptively appealing (unfortunate).

The consumer cannot predict his or her future health needs.. This is an assertion because the next sentence strats with "moreover" and instroduces more seertion. "Moreover, the administrators of the choice-based drug plans under consideration are allowed to change the drugs they cover and the prices they charge at any time;

Conclusion in the passage is: this renders informed consumer choice meaningless and makes securing appropriate coverage a crap shoot. Older and disabled individuals, the predominant consumers of government subsidized prescription drug plans, should be offered drug coverage alternatives that do not force them to gamble with their health.

Why B is wonrg? What is the main diff between conclusion and assertion?

Manager
Joined: 23 May 2006
Posts: 246

### Show Tags

12 Jul 2008, 12:29
rao_1857 wrote:
x97agarwal wrote:
IMO C. The first is an observation that the candidate acknowledges as true but unfortunate; the second is an assertion that the candidate makes to support his ultimate position.

Political Candidate: Government subsidized prescription drug plans that would allow individuals significant choice in determining their benefits and costs are deceptively appealing to numerous stakeholders. The candidate agrees that the drug plan would allow individuals significant choice (TRUE) but it is deceptively appealing (unfortunate).

The consumer cannot predict his or her future health needs.. This is an assertion because the next sentence strats with "moreover" and instroduces more seertion. "Moreover, the administrators of the choice-based drug plans under consideration are allowed to change the drugs they cover and the prices they charge at any time;

Conclusion in the passage is: this renders informed consumer choice meaningless and makes securing appropriate coverage a crap shoot. Older and disabled individuals, the predominant consumers of government subsidized prescription drug plans, should be offered drug coverage alternatives that do not force them to gamble with their health.

Why B is wonrg? What is the main diff between conclusion and assertion?

Good Question Rao. In the first bold face the second part is wrong - it is not an evidence.
Current Student
Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 2877
Location: New York City
Schools: Wharton'11 HBS'12

### Show Tags

12 Jul 2008, 13:25
i dont think D is correct..the second part is not an observation but an assertion..this is the view of the politician and he wants you to believe it..

therfore C is best
VP
Joined: 28 Dec 2005
Posts: 1310

### Show Tags

12 Jul 2008, 13:36
I am with fresinha .... i went with C because the second boldface is really an assertion
Director
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 574

### Show Tags

12 Jul 2008, 13:49
pmenon wrote:
I am with fresinha .... i went with C because the second boldface is really an assertion

Hi All,

Still confused ......

What is the main diff between conclusion and assertion?????
VP
Status: Been a long time guys...
Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 1023
Location: United States (NY)
Concentration: Finance, Marketing
GPA: 3.75
Re: Political Candidate: Government subsidized prescription drug  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Nov 2012, 07:32
Though I am a bit late, my assessment of C is that nowhere the first boldface has been proclaimed as unfortunate.
_________________
Intern
Joined: 15 Apr 2010
Posts: 38
Re: Political Candidate: Government subsidized prescription drug  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

11 Dec 2012, 09:46
B for me. In C, I don't think the first bold face is unfortunate. B is clearer.
Retired Moderator
Joined: 23 Jul 2010
Posts: 425
GPA: 3.4
WE: General Management (Non-Profit and Government)
Re: Political Candidate: Government subsidized prescription drug  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 Nov 2013, 01:19
1
2
Bumping for review and further disscussion

_________________
Manager
Joined: 23 May 2013
Posts: 93
Re: Political Candidate: Government subsidized prescription drug  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Jan 2014, 08:45
how can we conclude that first bold face is unfortunate? Can some expert please explain how to eliminate B?
_________________
“Confidence comes not from always being right but from not fearing to be wrong.”
Senior Manager
Joined: 04 May 2013
Posts: 268
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Human Resources
Schools: XLRI GM"18
GPA: 4
WE: Human Resources (Human Resources)
Re: Political Candidate: Government subsidized prescription drug  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Jan 2014, 08:59
the first BF is a fact about a plan. the author does not acknowledge its benefit......critical of its implementation... not opposed to it.....

the second is BF supports the conclusion by the author.

hence IMO"C".
Intern
Joined: 07 Aug 2012
Posts: 3
Political Candidate: Government subsidized prescription drug  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

29 Jun 2015, 08:35
I had a doubt here. Aren't the options C and B too close for comfort? Can we expect something like this in GMAT? I mean using the word unfortunate in C kind of baffled me. I don't think the author thinks it's unfortunate. If someone could help. Thanks
Retired Moderator
Status: The best is yet to come.....
Joined: 10 Mar 2013
Posts: 485
Re: Political Candidate: Government subsidized prescription drug  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Feb 2017, 00:26
natashakumar91 wrote:
I had a doubt here. Aren't the options C and B too close for comfort? Can we expect something like this in GMAT? I mean using the word unfortunate in C kind of baffled me. I don't think the author thinks it's unfortunate. If someone could help. Thanks

Though I am not expert, below is my understanding:

It is unfortunate because it deceptively appealing to numerous stakeholders NOT literally appealing to numerous stakeholders.

P.S.:I was also in a problem to understand how it is unfortunate.
_________________
Hasan Mahmud
Manager
Joined: 27 Aug 2015
Posts: 86
Re: Political Candidate: Government subsidized prescription drug  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Feb 2017, 13:59
Hi experts, I'm not able to understand difference between B and C? Both seem same.
Thanks
Retired Moderator
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 2862
Location: Germany
Schools: German MBA
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47
WE: Corporate Finance (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)
Political Candidate: Government subsidized prescription drug  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Feb 2017, 07:15
rakaisraka wrote:
Hi experts, I'm not able to understand difference between B and C? Both seem same.
Thanks

"Opposed to" can be interpreted as "not agreeing". Thus in option B the statement about BF1 beomes self-conflicting.

As for C, it is not convincing that an event is "unfortunate" because it is "deceptively appealing".

Thus, I find neither of the options up to the GMAT mark to qualify as the clear, correct answer.
Director
Joined: 26 Oct 2016
Posts: 619
Location: United States
Schools: HBS '19
GMAT 1: 770 Q51 V44
GPA: 4
WE: Education (Education)
Re: Political Candidate: Government subsidized prescription drug  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Apr 2017, 06:33
The conclusion, or ultimate position, of the political candidate is that older and
disabled individuals should be offered drug coverage alternatives that, in contrast
to plans built around individual choice, do not force them to gamble with their
health. The first bold-faced statement is an observation that the candidate makes
about the appeal of the choice-based plans; the use of the phrase "deceptively
appealing" and the continuation of the argument makes it clear that the candidate
views the appeal of these plans as unfortunate. The second bold-faced
statement, that consumers cannot predict their future health needs, is an
assertion that the candidate uses to support his ultimate position that alternative
plans should be offered.

(B) This choice correctly states that the second bold-faced statement is a claim
that the candidate uses as evidence to support his ultimate position. However,
the first bold-faced statement is not an observation to which the candidate is
ultimately opposed; it is his own observation that the current prescription drug
plans are "deceptively appealing." His opposition is to the drug plans
themselves, but that is not the observation made in the first statement.

(C) CORRECT. The first bold-faced statement, that coverage plans centered
around choice are deceptively appealing, is an observation that the candidate
acknowledges as true but unfortunate. The second bold-faced statement—that
consumers cannot predict their future health needs—is an assertion that the
candidate makes to support his ultimate position that alternative plans should be
offered.

(D) This choice incorrectly states that the candidate argues against the
observation that choice plans are deceptively appealing to numerous
stakeholders. This is the candidate's own observation; though he does view the
fact as unfortunate, one cannot argue against one's own observation. Moreover,
the second bold-faced statement is not an observation; instead, it is a claim used
to support the candidate's ultimate conclusion that alternative plans should be
offered.
_________________
Thanks & Regards,
Anaira Mitch
SVP
Joined: 12 Dec 2016
Posts: 1501
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V33
GPA: 3.64
Re: Political Candidate: Government subsidized prescription drug  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Nov 2017, 18:58
i think the obvious flaw in B is "Evidence" in the second bold phrase. There is no evidence.
"completely opposed" is not so obvious.
Re: Political Candidate: Government subsidized prescription drug   [#permalink] 26 Nov 2017, 18:58

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 21 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by