Jay: Of course there are many good reasons to support the expansion of

Question

Jay: Of course there are many good reasons to support the expansion of preventive medical care, but arguments claiming that it will lead to greater societal economic gains are misguided. Some of the greatest societal expenses arise from frequent urgent-care needs for people who have attained a long life due to preventive care.

Sunil: Your argument fails because you neglect economic gains outside the health care system: society suffers an economic loss when any of its productive members suffer from preventable illness.

Sunil's response to Jay makes which of the following assumptions?

(A) Those who receive preventive care are not more likely to need urgent care than are those who do not receive preventive care

(B) Jay intends the phrase "economic gains" to refer only to gains accruing to institutions within the health care system.

(C) Productive members of society are more likely than others to suffer preventable illnesses.

(D) The economic contributions of those who receive preventive medical care may outweigh the economic losses caused by preventive care.

(E) Jay is incorrect in stating that patients who receive preventive medical care are long-lived.

Show Spoiler

ID: 500324

Attachment:

CR Sunil.jpg [ 270.82 KiB | Viewed 71595 times ]

Show Answer

Official Answer

D

GMATNinja · Accepted Answer

I would start with Jay's conclusion, which is that "arguments claiming that   will lead to greater societal economic gains are misguided."

Why are those arguments misguided?... because "Some of the greatest societal expenses arise from frequent urgent-care needs for people who have attained a long life due to preventive care." In other words, preventive care helps many people live longer, but then those very people often have urgent-care needs. Those urgent care-needs are a great societal expense.

Sunil responds by pointing out the societal economic loss that results from a LACK of preventive medical care: "society suffers an economic loss when any of its productive members suffer from preventable illness." Sunil thus concludes that Jay's argument fails.

To summarize, Jay describes one way in which the expansion of preventive medical care will lead to a societal economic LOSS. Sunil responds by describing a societal economic GAIN (i.e. avoiding the economic loss that occurs when productive members of society suffer from preventable illnesses). So, which of the answer choices represents an assumption made in Sunil's response?

Sunil's response has nothing to do with urgent care. Instead, Sunil only talks about avoiding the economic loss that occurs when productive members of society suffer preventable illnesses. Eliminate (A).

Sunil responds by discussing an economic gain  outside  the health care system. Thus, if "economic gains" referred only to gains accruing to institutions within the health care system, Sunil's argument would not apply! Making the assumption stated in choice (B) would actually  hurt  Sunil's argument, so it is certainly not a required assumption. Eliminate (B).

Sunil's argument does not require that productive members of society are more likely than others to suffer preventable illnesses. Productive members could be just as likely or even less likely to suffer preventable illnesses than others. Regardless, preventive care would help avoid the economic loss that occurs when those productive members of society DO suffer preventable illnesses. Choice (C) is not a required assumption.

Remember, Sunil responds by describing a societal economic GAIN (i.e. avoiding the economic loss that occurs when productive members of society suffer from preventable illnesses). But what if that economic gain is SMALLER than the economic loss described by Jay? In other words, what if the frequent urgent-care expenses outweigh the economic gain described by Sunil? In that case, Jay's conclusion (that arguments claiming that the expansion of preventive medical care will lead to greater societal economic gains are misguided), would still be valid. Sunil is trying to argue that Jay's argument fails. Without making this assumption, Jay's argument will NOT fail, so choice (D) looks good.

Sunil only talks about avoiding the economic loss that occurs when productive members of society suffer preventable illnesses. This argument is valid regardless of whether patients who receive preventive medical care are long-lived. Eliminate (E).

Choice (D) is the best answer.

I hope that helps!

GMATNinja · Answer

It is ambiguous, and you're right to call attention to this word. But don't stop reasoning once you recognize that one word can have multiple meanings. The more critical question is:  Is that a valid reason for rejecting the answer choice ? And the answer is no.

Logically speaking, "may" and "may not"  don't cancel each other out . They simply present a wide range of possible outcomes. If we say:

Sunil assumes that the contributions  may  outweigh the losses,

all we're saying logically is:

Sunil assumes that  it's possible  for the contributions to outweigh the losses.

This possibility doesn't guarantee or prove that the contributions will outweigh the losses. And it leaves room for the losses to outweigh the contributions. But remember, we were asked  if choice (D) is being assumed by Sunil's argument.  We're not looking for the choice that make Sunil's argument strong enough to beat Jay's. We're looking for the choice that Sunil's argument requires in order to be logically sound.

Does Sunil's argument require that it's  possible  for contributions to outweigh losses? Yes! His argument would fall apart without this basic possibility.

The English language (and the GMAT) is  an incredibly frustrating diaper fire  full of words that can have multiple meanings. What we're doing when we analyze individual words is figuring out how they affect the logical argument, the meaning of the sentence, or the meaning of the passage.

I hope this helps!

msk0657 · Answer

Jay : People who receive the preventive care are arising the societal expenses.

Sunil : Society suffers an economic loss when any of its productive members suffer from preventable illness.

We can understand from this statement that as per Sunil's comment when people are healthy they'll earn more + spend more and this will in turn helps the society. This is the assumption.

Let's see the option that has is related with our paraphrase i.e link between people and economy.

A. Those who receive preventive care are not more likely to need urgent care than are those who do not receive preventive care... This option doesn't deal with people and economy. 
B. Jay intends the phrase "economic gains" to refer only to gains accruing to institutions within the health care system... This option doesn't deal with people and economy. 
C. Productive members of society are more likely than others to suffer preventable illnesses... This option doesn't deal with people and economy. 
D.The economic contributions of those who receive preventive medical care may outweigh the economic losses caused by preventive care.
E. Jay is incorrect in stating that patients who receive preventive medical care are long-lived... This option doesn't deal with people and economy.

Here only D matches our pre-thiking.

Shiv2016 · Answer

I will give it a try..

Jay: Of course there are many good reasons to support the expansion of preventive medical care, but arguments claiming that it will lead to greater societal economic gains are misguided. Some of the greatest societal expenses arise from frequent urgent-care needs for people who have attained a long life due to preventive care.

Jay believes that expansion of preventive medical care is fine but it will not really lead to societal economic gains. Why so?
 Because frequent urgent care needs will lead to greater societal expenses. So how is the society gaining?

Sunil: Your argument fails because you neglect economic gains outside the health care system: society suffers an economic loss when any of its productive members suffer from preventable illness.

Sunil thinks/believes completely opposite of what Jay believes. According to Sunil, a loss is not about money/gains but it is about the members who are productive. They fall ill and won't be contributing anything to the society. Instead will be using money for medical care.

Sunil's response to Jay makes which of the following assumptions?

A. Those who receive preventive care are not more likely to need urgent care than are those who do not receive preventive care
INCORRECT. I do not see how it kind of bridges the gap between the two statements.

B. Jay intends the phrase "economic gains" to refer only to gains accruing to institutions within the health care system.
We know that already because it was mentioned by Sunil. Also it does not really answers the question. INCORRECT

C. Productive members of society are more likely than others to suffer preventable illnesses.
But what about the economic gains and productive members of society. INCORRECT.

D.The economic contributions of those who receive preventive medical care may outweigh the economic losses caused by preventive care.
Yes!! It makes the argument more clear.

E. Jay is incorrect in stating that patients who receive preventive medical care are long-lived. 
INCORRECT.

VKat · Answer

Hello expert,

Could you please help me in solving this question.
How did you solve this question, whats ur approach?

srinjoy1990 · Answer

GMATNinja

I got this question right. However had a doubt, hence thought of asking you about the same.

Is the difference between C and D is that C is the assumption required only for argument 2 to exist and D is the assumption for argument 2 in light of argument 1?

Thanks,

GMATNinja · Answer

Let's focus on Sunil's argument: This argument describes a societal economic gain made when any productive member of society suffers from preventable illness. Revisiting what I wrote earlier in this thread , the argument does depend on the relative size of that economic gain, but it doesn't depend on the relative likelihood of preventable illness contracted by productive members of society. Choice (C) fails entirely on its own because it does not address the measurement of economic gain that Sunil has described. These members of society could be much more likely or much less likely to suffer preventable illnesses than non-productive members of society, and we still wouldn't have any indication of how much societal economic gain will change as a consequence of that likelihood. Because this assumption is not required for Sunil's argument, period, we eliminate it. Choice (D) states Sunil's unspoken logic explicitly: The gains made by productive members receiving preventative care will be greater than the losses described by Jay. That's why Sunil is confident that Jay's argument fails. Yes, this means that Sunil's conclusion is made in opposition to Jay's argument. However, the most important point is that choice (D) fully articulates Sunil's assumption regarding economic gain, while choice (C) presents information that isn't necessarily related to economic gain at all. That's why we eliminate (C) and stick with (D). May this explanation bring you much economic gain in the form of better GMAT performance.

akshaykotha · Answer

In choice B explanation, what does it mean when you say Sunil's argument  would not apply.  Is it like, it wouldn't even stand to consider? How about this line of thinking: Sunil's argument that Jay's argument fails because he did not consider economic gains for which option B is an enabler.

GMATNinja · Answer

If Jay's definition of "economic gain" only pertains to the health care system, then Jay's conclusion doesn't need to acknowledge anything outside of the health care system.

This means that Sunil's counter-argument is totally outside the scope of Jay's argument. Sunil's statement no longer applies because it points to gains  outside  the health care system, while Jay is only concerned with gains  inside  the health care system. So if (B) is true, then there's no way that Sunil's response can cause Jay's argument to fail. They're no longer even part of the same premise.

I hope this helps!

jawele · Answer

Hello guys,

(D) The economic contributions of those who receive preventive medical care   may   outweigh the economic losses caused by preventive care.

Could anybody please explain why the word " may " isn't ambiguous in D. I eliminated D just because of that word. I felt wondering "so which one is it?": may or may not outweigh the economic losses caused by preventive care? If it does outweigh, then surely it's Sunil's assumption. Otherwise, it hurts his conclusion.

KarishmaB · Answer

Jay
Preventive care leads to long life.
Long life leads to very high urgent care cost
Preventive care does not lead to overall societal economic gain.

Sunil
You are wrong. 
Society suffers loss when productive people suffer from preventive diseases.

Assumption made by Sunil:

(A) Those who receive preventive care are not more likely to need urgent care than are those who do not receive preventive care

He doesn't assume that people with preventive care need more urgent care.

(B) Jay intends the phrase "economic gains" to refer only to gains accruing to institutions within the health care system.

Not correct. He doesn't assume that Jay is referring to health care system only. He knows that Jay is referring to "societal economic gain" which includes all gain. That is the reason he talks about other productive gain from people who get preventive care.

(C) Productive members of society are more likely than others to suffer preventable illnesses.

He doesn't assume this. He talks about the loss the economy faces when productive members suffer preventable illnesses.

(D) The economic contributions of those who receive preventive medical care may outweigh the economic losses caused by preventive care.

Correct. Sunil is saying that preventive care may lead to overall societal economic gain because productive people who get preventive medical care contribute to the economy. So he is assuming that their contributions may outweigh the economic losses of preventive care.

(E) Jay is incorrect in stating that patients who receive preventive medical care are long-lived.

Sunil doesn't assume that they don't live long.

Answer (D)

jabhatta2 · Answer

Hi  VeritasKarishma   GMATNinja  - As part of the recommended CR drills, when analyzing  wrong  answers -- i tend to ask myself "what should the question stem have asked instead in order to select this wrong answer"

Just wondering, if you think the question should have been instead in order to select the wrong answer.

A = Example of weakener for Jay. This answer would be accurate. 
B = What is an assumption for Jay. This answer would be accurate.
C = What strengthens Sunil. This answer would be accurate.

Thoughts ?

KarishmaB · Answer

I am not sure who or what recommended you this strategy but it is a waste of time. Many options are completely irrelevant to the argument and to suit those, you would need a brand new argument. They need to be just discarded. 
Yes, sometimes while analysing, you will find that an option is a strengthener when you are looking for a weakener or an inference when looking for an assumption and it certainly helps to point that out to yourself to know that you have understood the argument really well but that is not true for most incorrect options.

Option (A) is not a weakener for Jay. The argument does not discuss people who get preventive care vs people who do not get it. It discusses the economic impact of people who get preventive care. 
Option (B) is not assumption for Jay. He is talking about economic impact, not just health industry impact.
Option (C) is not a strengthener for Sunil. He is not talking about productive members vs unproductive members. 
As I said, most options will be irrelevant.

Hoozan · Answer

GMATNinja   EducationAisle   VeritasKarishma  could you help me with (B)

Sunil starts by saying " Your argument fails because you  neglect  economic gains  outsid e the health care system " So isn't he assuming that Jay is talking about the gains within the health care system?

KarishmaB · Answer

Your confusion is understandable. The difference is subtle.

Given argument:

Jay: Of course there are many good reasons to support the expansion of preventive medical care, but arguments claiming that it will lead to greater  societal economic gains  are misguided. Some of the greatest societal expenses arise from frequent urgent-care needs for people who have attained a long life due to preventive care.

Sunil: Your argument fails because  you neglect economic gains outside the health care system : society suffers an economic loss when any of its productive members suffer from preventable illness.

Consider an alternative argument:

Jay: Of course there are many good reasons to support the expansion of preventive medical care, but arguments claiming that it will lead to greater  economic gains for health care industry  are misguided. Some of the greatest health care expenses arise from frequent urgent-care needs for people who have attained a long life due to preventive care.

Can Sunil now say that your argument fails because you neglect gains outside health care? No. Jay is talking about the health care industry only and its gains and losses. Now his argument doesn't fail. The only relevant topic of this argument are the economic gains of the healthcare industry. 
In the original argument, Sunil says that your argument fails only because he knows that Jay is talking about societal economic gains i.e. Jay intends to talk about overall economic gains and hence, Jay missed a point. 
Hence (B) is not correct.

SJKC · Answer

@VeritasKarishma  GMATNinja

Hey everyone,

I still couldn't understand why C isn't the right answer.

Just to summarize of what I understood from the Question stem is that -
Jay says that there's 'no economical gain' in expanding the preventive medical care because the ones who are gaining from this care are people who got treated and living an extended life. 
Sunil counters his argument by stating that Jay isn't considering the situations outside health and mentioned an example that says there's an economic gain in terms of how 'productive people' serve the society and that's an 'economic gain'.

Answer C says - Productive members of society are more likely than others to suffer preventable illnesses.

If I negate this - Unproductive members of society are more likely to suffer preventable diseases. In that case, it means that there's no economic gain and the argument falls apart. 
Am I missing anything here?

Thank you!

GMATNinja · Answer

You can check out  this link  for a breakdown of the passage, and  this link  for a more detailed comparison of (C) and (D). But just in case, here are a few more thoughts on why (C) is wrong.

Let's start by analyzing Sunil's response to Jay.

Sunil points out that "society suffers an economic loss when ANY of its productive members suffer from preventable illness." So if ANY productive member of society suffers from a preventable illness, Sunil thinks there will be "economic loss." This counters Jay's idea that linking preventive medical care to "great societal economic gains" is misguided.

In other words, Sunil points out that economic loss occurs when ANY productive member of society gets a preventable illness. So presumably, preventive medicine will reduce economic loss, thus countering Jay's argument.

Let's now consider (C):

Is this an assumption of Sunil's argument? In other words, is it  absolutely necessary  for Sunil's argument to hold up?

Not at all. As long as the economic gains caused by preventive care outweigh the losses, Sunil's argument holds up. But that doesn't  require  that productive members of society are more likely than others to suffer preventable illness. Maybe non-productive members are more likely to suffer from preventable illness (as you say in your analysis)? Maybe both groups are equally likely? Either way, Sunil's argument isn't damaged.

Keep in mind that even if non-productive members of society get more preventable illness than productive members, that doesn't mean that economic losses will outweigh economic gains. It could be that the economic gains from treating productive members of society far outweigh the costs of treating unproductive members, even if there are more unproductive members with preventable illnesses.

After all, we have no idea exactly how much money is gained or lost through the preventive care of different types of people. But as long as ENOUGH productive members of society get preventable illnesses (however many that might be), the economic gains of preventive care could outweigh the losses, and Sunil's argument holds up.

In other words, since it isn't  absolutely required  by Sunil's argument, (C) isn't an assumption, and we can throw it out.

I hope that helps!

jabhatta2 · Answer

Hi  avigutman  - i was wondering if this is an assumption

My understanding as, this is a key assumption for Sunil and Jay as well

avigutman · Answer

Sunil does make that assumption,  jabhatta2 . If productive members of society never suffer from any preventable illnesses, then this never happens:
 society suffers an economic loss  when  any of its productive members suffer from preventable illness. 
I don't see that Jay made this assumption, though.

Jay: Of course there are many good reasons to support the expansion of

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Jay: Of course there are many good reasons to support the expansion of

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards