Join us for MBA Spotlight – The Top 20 MBA Fair      Schedule of Events | Register

 It is currently 06 Jun 2020, 00:01

### 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

# The mayor boasts that the average ambulance turnaround time, the time

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Director
Joined: 16 Jul 2009
Posts: 623
Schools: CBS
WE 1: 4 years (Consulting)
The mayor boasts that the average ambulance turnaround time, the time  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 May 2010, 13:53
13
00:00

Difficulty:

25% (medium)

Question Stats:

76% (01:47) correct 24% (01:55) wrong based on 701 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

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.

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?

(A) The number of heart attacks and strokes declined this year.
(B) The mayor redefined the city’s financial priorities this year.
(C) Experts disagree with the mayor’s definition of “top-priority emergency.”
(D) Other cities include gunshot wound cases in their category o top-priority emergencies.
(E) One half of all of last year’s top-priority emergencies were gunshot wounds and electrocution cases.

Source: LSAT
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 10506
Location: Pune, India
Re: The mayor boasts that the average ambulance turnaround time, the time  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Jul 2018, 22:10
4
noboru wrote:
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.

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?

(A) The number of heart attacks and strokes declined this year.
(B) The mayor redefined the city’s financial priorities this year.
(C) Experts disagree with the mayor’s definition of “top-priority emergency.”
(D) Other cities include gunshot wound cases in their category o top-priority emergencies.
(E) One half of all of last year’s top-priority emergencies were gunshot wounds and electrocution cases.

Source: LSAT

Premises:
Mayor - Avg ambulance turnaround time for top priority emergencies has been reduced.
The definition of top priority has been changed to remove gun shots and electrocutions - the time consuming cases.

Conclusion: Mayor's claim is a misrepresentation.

We want to strengthen the conclusion.

(A) The number of heart attacks and strokes declined this year.
Total number of incidents is immaterial.

(B) The mayor redefined the city’s financial priorities this year.
Financial priorities is out of scope.

(C) Experts disagree with the mayor’s definition of “top-priority emergency.”
The opinion of some has nothing to do with the conclusion. Note that generally only facts make conclusions stronger or weaker. Opinion of some does not.

(D) Other cities include gunshot wound cases in their category o top-priority emergencies.
There is no right or wrong way to define top-priority emergencies. We know that it included gunshot wounds last year but the definition has now been changed to not include gun shot wounds. IT doesn't make the definition wrong, just different. This difference has led to the misrepresentation.
How other cities define top-priority emergencies is irrelevant. We just care about last year vs this year in our city.

(E) One half of all of last year’s top-priority emergencies were gunshot wounds and electrocution cases.
If a big part of last year's emergencies were gunshot wounds & elec and this year, they are not included, this could explain the reduction in the average turnaround time. If last year gunshot wounds and elec accounted for a very small part of top priority emergencies, not including them would not have made much difference at all. But since a big part of last year emergencies weer gunshot wounds & elec, it does make sense that not including them will reduce the turnaround time without any actual difference on ground.

Hence (E) is correct.
_________________
Karishma
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor

##### General Discussion
Intern
Joined: 09 Apr 2010
Posts: 41
Re: The mayor boasts that the average ambulance turnaround time, the time  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 May 2010, 19:47
IMO E

we are looking to strengthen conclusion ...even 5% strengthen would help ...in this case our conclusion is that "the redefinition of the term "top priorty" is the reason of the reduced time" --> to help with this conclusion we are provided with examples of heart attack, electrocution, etc

E) if "gunshot wounds and electrocution cases" were half of the cases. So there is a possibility that because we took these cases out, the overall time gets reduced because these were the cases that took the most time. Thus this somehow supports the conclusion better than others.
Director
Joined: 16 Jul 2009
Posts: 623
Schools: CBS
WE 1: 4 years (Consulting)
Re: The mayor boasts that the average ambulance turnaround time, the time  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 May 2010, 23:34
neoreaves wrote:
IMO E

we are looking to strengthen conclusion ...even 5% strengthen would help ...in this case our conclusion is that "the redefinition of the term "top priorty" is the reason of the reduced time" --> to help with this conclusion we are provided with examples of heart attack, electrocution, etc

E) if "gunshot wounds and electrocution cases" were half of the cases. So there is a possibility that because we took these cases out, the overall time gets reduced because these were the cases that took the most time. Thus this somehow supports the conclusion better than others.

Why no A?
If the number of heart attacks and strokes declined this year; and these are actually the top priority cases, that somehow also strengthen the conclusion, does not it?
Thanks.
Manager
Joined: 04 May 2009
Posts: 112
Location: London
Schools: Haas (WL), Kellogg (matricultating), Stanford (R2, ding), Columbia (ding)
WE 1: 3 years hotel industry sales and marketing France
WE 2: 3 years financial industry marketing UK
Re: The mayor boasts that the average ambulance turnaround time, the time  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 May 2010, 12:48
2
noboru wrote:
Why no A?
If the number of heart attacks and strokes declined this year; and these are actually the top priority cases, that somehow also strengthen the conclusion, does not it?
Thanks.

I agree with E for the above explanations.

Noboru, I would say that A in not good because what the argument focuses on is the fact that the mayor redefined the top priorities.
To strenghten the argument we need to continue to focus on this by showing how the fact that the top priorities emergencies no longer include the shotgun wounds and electructions had an impact on the decreased average time.
With A, we only show that the heart attacks and strokes declined, but this doesn't help without knowing about the shotgun wounds and electructions.

Hope this helps...

can you confirm OA?
Verbal Forum Moderator
Joined: 15 Apr 2013
Posts: 175
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Marketing
GMAT Date: 11-23-2015
GPA: 3.6
WE: Science (Other)
Re: The mayor boasts that the average ambulance turnaround time, the time  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

Updated on: 31 Dec 2013, 06:38
2
(A) is clearly out, since the argument says "time reduction" for the "Top Priority Emergencies" in current year. As compared to the last year time consuming tasks like gunshots/ electro.. excluded in current year. So if these "time consuming tasks" occupy more than 50% of the jobs in last year than this certainly strengthen the conclusion that redefining (removing time consuming jobs) top priority does reduce the time.

90 Seconds, probably not too quick for a 700. Cheers!

Originally posted by WillGetIt on 31 Dec 2013, 03:41.
Last edited by WillGetIt on 31 Dec 2013, 06:38, edited 1 time in total.
Senior Manager
Joined: 03 May 2013
Posts: 259
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Human Resources
Schools: XLRI GM"18
GPA: 4
WE: Human Resources (Human Resources)
Re: The mayor boasts that the average ambulance turnaround time, the time  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

31 Dec 2013, 04:34
CONCLUSION- It is a serious misrepresentation that the average ambulance turnaround time has been reduced this year for top-priority emergencies.
premise- 1. This “reduction” was produced simply by redefining “top priority.”
2. Such emergencies used to include gunshot wounds and electrocutions, the most time-consuming cases. Now they are limited strictly to heart attacks and strokes.

WE ARE LOOKING AT AVERAGE TURNAROUND TIME...we have to prove that by redefining top priority cases the AVERAGE turnaround time reduces.... therefore, by reduction of gunshot and wound cases, average turnaround time for top priority cases has reduced....................

(A) The number of heart attacks and strokes declined this year...... turnaround time will not change.... wrong
(B) The mayor redefined the city’s financial priorities this year.... irrelevant
(C) Experts disagree with the mayor’s definition of “top-priority emergency......experts can continue to disagree..... wrong
(D) Other cities include gunshot wound cases in their category o top-priority emergencies.......why bother about what OTHERS do.....
(E) One half of all of last year’s top-priority emergencies were gunshot wounds and electrocution cases..... yes this will affect the average... which WILL REDUCE.....CORRECT....
_________________
Verbal Forum Moderator
Status: Greatness begins beyond your comfort zone
Joined: 08 Dec 2013
Posts: 2445
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
Schools: Kelley '20, ISB '19
GPA: 3.2
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
Re: The mayor boasts that the average ambulance turnaround time, the time  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 Dec 2017, 21:24
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.

Boil it down -- Definition change to exclude most time-consuming cases ---> reduction in average turn around time
Pre-thinking -- These cases were significant enough in their occurrence to affect turn-around time (The most time-consuming cases did not very rarely -- i.e only 1-2 percent of total cases )

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?

(A) The number of heart attacks and strokes declined this year. -- Irrelevant -- we are not bothered about the number of heart attacks and strokes for this year
(B) The mayor redefined the city’s financial priorities this year. -- Irrelevant
(C) Experts disagree with the mayor’s definition of “top-priority emergency.”-- Irrelevant
(D) Other cities include gunshot wound cases in their category o top-priority emergencies.-- Incorrect -- but this does not say that redefinition led to decrease in turn around time
(E) One half of all of last year’s top-priority emergencies were gunshot wounds and electrocution cases. -- Correct

_________________
When everything seems to be going against you, remember that the airplane takes off against the wind, not with it. - Henry Ford
The Moment You Think About Giving Up, Think Of The Reason Why You Held On So Long
Manager
Joined: 05 Dec 2014
Posts: 227
Location: India
GMAT 1: 660 Q49 V31
GPA: 3.54
Re: The mayor boasts that the average ambulance turnaround time, the time  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Dec 2017, 01:35
Skywalker18 wrote:
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.

Boil it down -- Definition change to exclude most time-consuming cases ---> reduction in average turn around time
Pre-thinking -- These cases were significant enough in their occurrence to affect turn-around time (The most time-consuming cases did not very rarely -- i.e only 1-2 percent of total cases )

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?

(A) The number of heart attacks and strokes declined this year. -- Irrelevant -- we are not bothered about the number of heart attacks and strokes for this year
(B) The mayor redefined the city’s financial priorities this year. -- Irrelevant
(C) Experts disagree with the mayor’s definition of “top-priority emergency.”-- Irrelevant
(D) Other cities include gunshot wound cases in their category o top-priority emergencies.-- Incorrect -- but this does not say that redefinition led to decrease in turn around time
(E) One half of all of last year’s top-priority emergencies were gunshot wounds and electrocution cases. -- Correct

Hi Skywalker18,
I have a thought on option E. E states that one half of all of last year’s top-priority emergencies were gunshot wounds and electrocution cases. Now, we dont know anything about this year. We are comparing the data and making an assumption that the same trend of gunshot wounds and electrocution cases will be this year and sibce these are excluded, the timearound time decreases. But, what if this year, we have gunshot wounds and electrocution cases negligible. Then author's argument is weakened.
Had the construction been One half of all of this year’s emergencies are gunshot wounds and electrocution cases make more sense to me. Pleas help me to understand where my understanding lacks.
Verbal Forum Moderator
Status: Greatness begins beyond your comfort zone
Joined: 08 Dec 2013
Posts: 2445
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
Schools: Kelley '20, ISB '19
GPA: 3.2
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
Re: The mayor boasts that the average ambulance turnaround time, the time  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Dec 2017, 02:35
sunny91 wrote:
Skywalker18 wrote:
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.

Boil it down -- Definition change to exclude most time-consuming cases ---> reduction in average turn around time
Pre-thinking -- These cases were significant enough in their occurrence to affect turn-around time (The most time-consuming cases did not very rarely -- i.e only 1-2 percent of total cases )

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?

(A) The number of heart attacks and strokes declined this year. -- Irrelevant -- we are not bothered about the number of heart attacks and strokes for this year
(B) The mayor redefined the city’s financial priorities this year. -- Irrelevant
(C) Experts disagree with the mayor’s definition of “top-priority emergency.”-- Irrelevant
(D) Other cities include gunshot wound cases in their category o top-priority emergencies.-- Incorrect -- but this does not say that redefinition led to decrease in turn around time
(E) One half of all of last year’s top-priority emergencies were gunshot wounds and electrocution cases. -- Correct

Hi Skywalker18,
I have a thought on option E. E states that one half of all of last year’s top-priority emergencies were gunshot wounds and electrocution cases. Now, we dont know anything about this year. We are comparing the data and making an assumption that the same trend of gunshot wounds and electrocution cases will be this year and sibce these are excluded, the timearound time decreases. But, what if this year, we have gunshot wounds and electrocution cases negligible. Then author's argument is weakened.
Had the construction been One half of all of this year’s emergencies are gunshot wounds and electrocution cases make more sense to me. Pleas help me to understand where my understanding lacks.

Hi sunny91 ,
We are not bothered about the proportion of last year's top-priority emergencies (gunshot wounds and electrocution cases) for this year because those cases have already been excluded for the current year's average ambulance turnaround time because of the redefinition of “top priority”.

This is the concept of weighted average.
--> Last year average turn around time was because of the contribution of gunshot wounds and electrocutions, the most time-consuming cases .
--> This year , the term top prority was redefined to exclude gunshot wounds and electrocutions, the most time-consuming cases .
--> Mayor's claim that average turn around time has been reduced this year , but the argument disputes that it was merely the redefinition of “top priority”.
--> So Last year, gunshot wounds and electrocutions were rare , so the turn around time for these cases will have little impact on total average .

Hope this helps!!
_________________
When everything seems to be going against you, remember that the airplane takes off against the wind, not with it. - Henry Ford
The Moment You Think About Giving Up, Think Of The Reason Why You Held On So Long
IIMA, IIMC School Moderator
Joined: 04 Sep 2016
Posts: 1428
Location: India
WE: Engineering (Other)
Re: The mayor boasts that the average ambulance turnaround time, the time  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Jul 2018, 05:42

I 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 misrepresentation

On 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 strokes

Quote:
(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 strokes
since we are talking about present and not past year.
_________________
It's the journey that brings us happiness not the destination.

Feeling stressed, you are not alone!!
CR & LSAT Forum Moderator
Status: He came. He saw. He conquered. -- Studying for the LSAT -- Corruptus in Extremis
Joined: 31 Jul 2017
Posts: 918
Location: United States (MA)
Concentration: Finance, Economics
Re: The mayor boasts that the average ambulance turnaround time, the time  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Jul 2018, 05:55

I 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 misrepresentation

On 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 strokes

Quote:
(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 strokes
since 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.

Does this help?
_________________
D-Day: November 18th, 2017

My CR Guide: Here
My RC Guide: Here
Want to be a moderator? We may want you to be one! See how: Here
IIMA, IIMC School Moderator
Joined: 04 Sep 2016
Posts: 1428
Location: India
WE: Engineering (Other)
Re: The mayor boasts that the average ambulance turnaround time, the time  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Jul 2018, 07:27

Quote:
(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.

I apologize that I could not comprehend above quote. In a classic strengthen question, all I need to do
is to increase my belief in author's claim, not PROVE it. Similar questions are covered here and here (see quote by GMATNinja and
generis ) where in there is no explicit comparison made but the inference I made helped to increase my belief in author's claim.
What did I miss understanding here?
_________________
It's the journey that brings us happiness not the destination.

Feeling stressed, you are not alone!!
CR & LSAT Forum Moderator
Status: He came. He saw. He conquered. -- Studying for the LSAT -- Corruptus in Extremis
Joined: 31 Jul 2017
Posts: 918
Location: United States (MA)
Concentration: Finance, Economics
Re: The mayor boasts that the average ambulance turnaround time, the time  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Jul 2018, 07:37
1

Quote:
(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.

I apologize that I could not comprehend above quote. In a classic strengthen question, all I need to do
is to increase my belief in author's claim, not PROVE it. Similar questions are covered here and here (see quote by GMATNinja and @generis) where in there is no explicit comparison made but the inference I made helped to increase my belief in author's claim.
What did I miss understanding here?

You are correct about your statement. But how do know the cities are similar? What if one has 20000 hospitals and the other has 5? What if one is 400000 miles across and one is 4? These questions sink the possibility of comparison. For the criminologist question, the reason that the embezzlement one is eliminated is because the other option is far better. Though it is not recommended to go about eliminating answers this way, for the criminal one you have to assume that embezzlement and robbery are similar. I personally did not like the question because of that flaw.
_________________
D-Day: November 18th, 2017

My CR Guide: Here
My RC Guide: Here
Want to be a moderator? We may want you to be one! See how: Here
Intern
Joined: 09 Feb 2019
Posts: 22
Re: The mayor boasts that the average ambulance turnaround time, the time  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Aug 2019, 18:02
Got this one wrong, but here's my error analysis and takeaways:
- As per Karishma's post above, "only facts make conclusions stronger or weaker. Opinion of some does not."
- Be precise with scope! Incorrectly answered C which is out of scope.

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.

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?

(A) The number of heart attacks and strokes declined this year.
Out of scope: irrelevant
(B) The mayor redefined the city’s financial priorities this year.
Out of scope: irrelevant
(C) Experts disagree with the mayor’s definition of “top-priority emergency.”
Out of scope: I had incorrectly answered C which I now realize is out of scope.
(D) Other cities include gunshot wound cases in their category o top-priority emergencies.
Out of scope: Other cities actions immaterial
(E) One half of all of last year’s top-priority emergencies were gunshot wounds and electrocution cases.
Relevant and correct
Manager
Joined: 24 Sep 2015
Posts: 57
Location: Spain
Concentration: Strategy, Entrepreneurship
GPA: 3.9
WE: Management Consulting (Consulting)
Re: The mayor boasts that the average ambulance turnaround time, the time  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 Sep 2019, 01:27
Following Nightblade354 advise to push my CR skills beyond the limits, I'll post an extensive analysis of this question, explaining the initial thoughts on the stimulus and the reasons why I reject four options and choose one as the winner . I beieve this is one of the best ways to improve in CR. Don't just do questions, but try to extract as much as possible from each of them. I think doing blind review help a lot in doing so (more about blind review here: https://gmatclub.com/forum/mod-nightbla%20...%2095316.html)

Here is the stimulus: 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.

Initial thoughts: Ok this is a strenghten question, so let's try to find out a gap in the argument. Then the option could stregnthen the argument by filling one of these gaps.

1º Premise: Turnaround times has been reduced for top priority emergencies
2º Premise: Top prioroty emergencies used to include gunshot wounds and electrocution. Now they include heart attacks and strokes
Conclusion: Reduction is due to a change of what top priority emergencies include and not due to reduction of time of the emergencies themselves

Is the redefinition of top priorities enough to say that that's the reason why the times have decreased. Well, the argument says that they used to include the most-time consuming cases and now they are not included. So it is reasonable to state that. But what if heart attacks and strokes are now more time-consuming than gunshot wounds and electrocutions. mmm, it could be and we would need to eliminate that possibility to strengthen the argument. In addition, other time-consuming cases could have been included and the elmination of this possibility would strengthen the argument. Ok, enough. Let's read the choices with all these thoughts in mind.

(A) The number of heart attacks and strokes declined this year.

Ok. They declined. By how much? we don't know. Does this decline impact the average turnaround time of heart attacks and strokes. No. So this option doesn't help. Incorrect

(B) The mayor redefined the city’s financial priorities this year.

Financial priorities? This is not related in any way with average turnaround time. Incorrect

(C) Experts disagree with the mayor’s definition of “top-priority emergency.”

mm. They disagree with the mayor's definitions and they are experts. Do we know what experts base their definition of top priority emergencies? No, it's not said anywhere. We don't know if they consider time around time or severity of the cases to define top priority emergencies so this option doesn't help. Incorrect

(D) Other cities include gunshot wound cases in their category of top-priority emergencies.

We are trying to strengthen why the average time went down regardless of if gunshot wound cases removal is good or not. It doesn't address the main conclusion. Incorrect

(E) One half of all of last year’s top-priority emergencies were gunshot wounds and electrocution cases.

mmm. This one doesn't sound bad. We didn't know anything about the percentage that gunshot wounds and electrocution cases had. It could have been 1% of the total, in which case the removal wouldn't have impacted that much the average time, or it could be much more. Since we know that one half were the most time-consuming cases, then for sure average time has gone down because of the removal of these cases. Correct

Option E
Director
Joined: 14 Dec 2019
Posts: 668
Location: Poland
GMAT 1: 570 Q41 V27
WE: Engineering (Consumer Electronics)
Re: The mayor boasts that the average ambulance turnaround time, the time  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Apr 2020, 16:03
Is this an LSAT question or an OG question? Source is specified as LSAT though I found it in OG2020.

Does GMAC takes up LSAT question at times for GMAT?
Re: The mayor boasts that the average ambulance turnaround time, the time   [#permalink] 21 Apr 2020, 16:03