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.
May 2512:01 AM PDT
-11:59 PM PDT
On the 25th, GMAT Club Tests will be Free! Including all the Quizzes, Questions, and Tests. 12 AM - 11:59 PM PST
May 2110:00 AM EDT
-11:59 PM EDT
Make the most of your break with the most realistic GMAT™ prep. Take up to $700 off select products.
May 2211:00 AM EDT
-11:59 PM EDT
Take 30% off all study plans with code PICNIC - Expires on Monday, May 25th- Jun 10
06:00 AM PDT
-06:15 PM PDT
Register for the GMAT Club Virtual MBA Spotlight Fair – the world’s premier event for serious MBA candidates. This is your chance to hear directly from Admissions Directors at nearly every Top 30 MBA program..
04 Jan 2026, 22:00
Kudos
Bookmarks
B
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
55%
(hard)
Question Stats:
67% (02:05) correct
33%
(02:22)
wrong
based on 298
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
The country of Sewell was recently hit by a devastating earthquake, prompting the government to request foreign aid. However, direct donations of medical supplies can depress prices of medical supplies in Sewell and drive local producers out of business, further increasing Sewell’s dependence on foreign aid to provide medical care for its people.
Which of the following, if true, is the strongest counter-argument against the argument above?
A. Cash aid would be thirty to fifty percent more expensive to donor countries than the direct donation of medical supplies, since the donor governments already hold a surplus of medical supplies for which they are incurring storage costs.
B. Since Sewell’s hospitals are nationalized, extra medical supplies will not depress the official price, and the government can use the cash it raises from selling donated medical supplies to fund reconstruction efforts.
C. If the medical supplies donated to the government of Sewell are given free to the people, the people will use the money they would have had to spend on medical supplies for other necessities, not medical supplies.
D. Due to logistical disruptions, local producers have produced much lower amounts of medical supplies than usual.
E. Many of Sewell’s poorest live in villages where there are no hospitals, so the benefit of the donated medical supplies will be felt by those who already have access to better medical care than the poor in the villages do.
Which of the following, if true, is the strongest counter-argument against the argument above?
A. Cash aid would be thirty to fifty percent more expensive to donor countries than the direct donation of medical supplies, since the donor governments already hold a surplus of medical supplies for which they are incurring storage costs.
B. Since Sewell’s hospitals are nationalized, extra medical supplies will not depress the official price, and the government can use the cash it raises from selling donated medical supplies to fund reconstruction efforts.
C. If the medical supplies donated to the government of Sewell are given free to the people, the people will use the money they would have had to spend on medical supplies for other necessities, not medical supplies.
D. Due to logistical disruptions, local producers have produced much lower amounts of medical supplies than usual.
E. Many of Sewell’s poorest live in villages where there are no hospitals, so the benefit of the donated medical supplies will be felt by those who already have access to better medical care than the poor in the villages do.
05 Jan 2026, 01:20
Kudos
Bookmarks
Step 1: Identify the Argument's Causal Chain
The argument warns that direct donations will cause:
Donations → Flood market → Prices drop → Local producers undercut → Producers fail → More aid dependence
To counter this, we need to BREAK a link in this chain.
Step 2: Analyze the Answers
(A) Cash aid is 30-50% more expensive for donor countries...
→ Talks about cost to DONORS, not impact on Sewell
→ Actually supports direct donations (cheaper for donors!)
→ Doesn't address the concern ✗
(B) Hospitals are nationalized, so extra supplies won't depress official prices, and government can sell donations to fund reconstruction.
→ KEY: Nationalized = Government controls prices
→ Prices won't drop regardless of supply
→ Local producers protected
→ BONUS: Government gains cash for reconstruction
→ Breaks the causal chain! ✓
(C) People will use saved money for other necessities...
→ Confirms supplies are given free
→ Free supplies would still depress prices
→ Doesn't counter the concern ✗
(D) Local producers have produced less due to disruptions...
→ Weak: "Not much local production to hurt anyway"
→ Doesn't address price depression
→ Temporary situation, not structural solution
→ Weak at best ✗
(E) Poorest live in villages without hospitals...
→ This criticizes the donation system
→ Actually argues AGAINST direct donations
→ Wrong direction entirely ✗
Step 3: Why B is the Strongest Counter
The original argument assumes a free market where:
Supply ↑ → Prices ↓ → Local producers hurt
B says: "That's not how Sewell works!"
In a nationalized system:
• Government sets official prices
• Prices don't drop just because supply increases
• Local producers compete at stable official prices
• The mechanism that causes harm CANNOT operate
Key Takeaway:
For counter-argument questions:
• Identify the causal chain
• Find the answer that breaks a link in that chain
• B attacks the mechanism: "Prices will drop" → NO, government controls prices
Answer: B
The argument warns that direct donations will cause:
Donations → Flood market → Prices drop → Local producers undercut → Producers fail → More aid dependence
To counter this, we need to BREAK a link in this chain.
Step 2: Analyze the Answers
(A) Cash aid is 30-50% more expensive for donor countries...
→ Talks about cost to DONORS, not impact on Sewell
→ Actually supports direct donations (cheaper for donors!)
→ Doesn't address the concern ✗
(B) Hospitals are nationalized, so extra supplies won't depress official prices, and government can sell donations to fund reconstruction.
→ KEY: Nationalized = Government controls prices
→ Prices won't drop regardless of supply
→ Local producers protected
→ BONUS: Government gains cash for reconstruction
→ Breaks the causal chain! ✓
(C) People will use saved money for other necessities...
→ Confirms supplies are given free
→ Free supplies would still depress prices
→ Doesn't counter the concern ✗
(D) Local producers have produced less due to disruptions...
→ Weak: "Not much local production to hurt anyway"
→ Doesn't address price depression
→ Temporary situation, not structural solution
→ Weak at best ✗
(E) Poorest live in villages without hospitals...
→ This criticizes the donation system
→ Actually argues AGAINST direct donations
→ Wrong direction entirely ✗
Step 3: Why B is the Strongest Counter
The original argument assumes a free market where:
Supply ↑ → Prices ↓ → Local producers hurt
B says: "That's not how Sewell works!"
In a nationalized system:
• Government sets official prices
• Prices don't drop just because supply increases
• Local producers compete at stable official prices
• The mechanism that causes harm CANNOT operate
Key Takeaway:
For counter-argument questions:
• Identify the causal chain
• Find the answer that breaks a link in that chain
• B attacks the mechanism: "Prices will drop" → NO, government controls prices
Answer: B
05 Jan 2026, 10:49
Kudos
Bookmarks
B gives a way in which the donations given by the other countries do not increase further dependence on foreign aid - as extra medical supplies will not cause a decrease in price and the money Sewell's govn raises from donations can fund reconstruction efforts.
So, B is correct.
So, B is correct.
