Humanitarian considerations aside, sheer economics dictates that count

Question

Humanitarian considerations aside, sheer economics dictates that country X should institute, as country Y has done, a nationwide system of air and ground transportation for conveying seriously injured persons to specialized trauma centers. Timely access to the kind of medical care that only specialized centers can provide could save the lives of many people. The earnings of these people would result in a substantial increase in country X’s gross national product, and the taxes paid on those earnings would substantially augment government revenues.

The argument depends on the assumption that

(A) lifetime per-capita income is roughly the same in country X as it is in country Y

(B) there are no specialized trauma centers in country X at present

(C) the treatment of seriously injured persons in trauma centers is not more costly than treatment elsewhere

(D) there would be a net increase in employment in country X if more persons survived serious injury

(E) most people seriously injured in automobile accidents in country X do not now receive treatment in specialized trauma centers

Bunuel · Accepted Answer

EXPLANATION FROM Fox LSAT

Premise: Timely access to the kind of care that only specialized trauma centers can provide could save many lives.  
  Premise: The earnings of these people would result in a substantial increase in GNP.  
  Premise: Taxes paid on those earnings would substantially augment government revenues.  
  Conclusion: We should institute a nationwide system of air and ground transportation for conveying seriously injured persons to specialized trauma centers.

My question: How much would it cost to do such a thing? The argument only focuses on what is to be  gained , rather than what it would  cost  to implement the plan. That’s the biggest problem here. The assumption will probably be something like, “The gains will outweigh the costs.” Because if that’s not true, then the plan is stupid.

A) No, the argument is not about “lifetime per capita income” between X and Y.

B) No, the argument is not about whether we  have  trauma centers. It’s about transportation to trauma centers.

C) No, the argument isn’t about costs in trauma centers vs. costs elsewhere.

D) This isn’t what we were looking for, but I think it’s the correct answer. If D isn’t true, then there would be  no net increase  in employment if we saved these people. In other words, if they die, others will take their jobs. If there is no employment gain, how can there be a GNP or tax gain? I think D must be assumed or the argument can’t make sense.

E) This wasn’t necessarily assumed. Maybe most auto accident victims currently  do  get to specialized trauma centers, but the author wanted to build a transportation system to save people in skiing accidents or some other sort of traumatic accidents. This answer can be false without ruining the argument.

If D is false, it ruins the argument. So D is our answer.

SaiPavanR · Answer

Humanitarian considerations aside, sheer economics dictates that country X should institute, as country Y has done, a nationwide system of air and ground transportation for conveying seriously injured persons to specialized trauma centers. Timely access to the kind of medical care that only specialized centers can provide could save the lives of many people. The earnings of these people would result in a substantial increase in country X’s gross national product, and the taxes paid on those earnings would substantially augment government revenues.

The argument depends on the assumption that

(A) lifetime per-capita income is roughly the same in country X as it is in country Y
 Comparison between per-capita income of X and Y is irrelevant

(B) there are no specialized trauma centers in country X at present
 This option slightly weakens the argument. If there are no such centres at the first place, then the plan(a nationwide system of air and ground transportation for conveying seriously injured persons to specialized trauma centers) doesn't help country X

(C) the treatment of seriously injured persons in trauma centers is not more costly than treatment elsewhere
 
Difference in cost of treatments will not effect our logic in anyways. Author's logic is that, the saved lives will help improve GDP of country X. So, C is irrelevant.

(D) there would be a net increase in employment in country X if more persons survived serious injury
 This option comes near to the author's logic. If the saved lives/persons help to net increase in employment in X, then the GDP will improve. We can hold option D.

(E) most people seriously injured in automobile accidents in country X do not now receive treatment in specialized trauma centers
 
We can eliminate this option after seeing the out of scope word AUTO accidents. We never know whether the auto accidents can always lead to serious injuries.

einstein801 · Answer

This isn't a great question. a net increase in employment would require assuming that the injured persons are unemployed...... there is no mention of this in the passage. the question stem likely means that an injured person will be saved and be able to continue working... they dont just become unemployed when they become "seriously injured"

Shrey1 · Answer

unicornilove  the argument states that - "The earnings of these people would result in a substantial increase in country X’s gross national product". Earnings would substantially increase the GNP only when the employment rate is also increasing.

If employment is not getting changed, then those who are unemployed will replace the ones who are getting seriously injured and the GNP will remain the same.

So, the correct answer would be D in this case.

Raman109 · Answer

Understanding the argument - 
Humanitarian considerations aside, sheer economics dictates that country X should institute, as country Y has done, a nationwide system of air and ground transportation for conveying seriously injured persons to specialized trauma centers. - Opinion
Timely access to the kind of medical care that only specialized centers can provide could save the lives of many people. - Premise. 
The earnings of these people would result in a substantial increase in country X’s gross national product, and the taxes paid on those earnings would substantially augment government revenues. - Conclusion.

The argument depends on the assumption that

(A) lifetime per-capita income is roughly the same in country X as it is in country Y - No. This comparison is out of scope.

(B) there are no specialized trauma centers in country X at present - At best, it may weaken.

(C) the treatment of seriously injured persons in trauma centers is not more costly than treatment elsewhere - This comparison is out of the scope. Our focus here is to find the minimum, necessary condition or missing premise for the conclusion.

(D) there would be a net increase in employment in country X if more persons survived serious injury - Consider a scenario in which one meets with a serious accident and loses one limb, which makes them unfit for their current job. So, while someone takes their job, they can still enter the job market for some other work, leading to a net increase in employment rather than just being unemployed. Moreover, negating the option, "there would be no net increase in employment," would shatter the conclusion. Look at the part of the conclusion that "would substantially augment government revenues." If a person meets with an accident and the same person takes the same job, the net effect is zero. So, to "substantially augment" the assumption has to be an increase in employment. OK.

(E) most people seriously injured in automobile accidents in country X do not now receive treatment in specialized trauma centers - This is very specific about automobile accidents. But the proposal's scope is quite broad - anyone and everyone in the country in whatever accident.

thisischelso · Answer

Humanitarian considerations aside, sheer economics dictates that country X should institute, as country Y has done, a nationwide system of air and ground transportation for conveying seriously injured persons to specialized trauma centers. Timely access to the kind of medical care that only specialized centers can provide could save the lives of many people. The earnings of these people would result in a substantial increase in country X’s gross national product, and the taxes paid on those earnings would substantially augment government revenues.

The argument depends on the assumption that

(A) lifetime per-capita income is roughly the same in country X as it is in country Y
(B) there are no specialized trauma centers in country X at present
(C) the treatment of seriously injured persons in trauma centers is not more costly than treatment elsewhere
(D) there would be a net increase in employment in country X if more persons survived serious injury
(E) most people seriously injured in automobile accidents in country X do not now receive treatment in specialized trauma centers

Premise - people who are saved in trauma centers will be able to contribute to the GNP, increasing earnings from taxes that are paid 
Conclusion - Country X should build an air system to better transport injured trauma patients to special hospitals 
Goal - we need find an answer that must be true and links the premise + conclusion. AKA we need to find an answer that, if it's NOT true, the conclusion falls apart. (Negation)

A - Trick answer as it discusses per-capita income but how is this related to impact due to trauma patients? 
B - Could be true but doesn't necessarily need to be true for the conclusion to stand. Out 
C Cost of treatment is out of scope. Out 
D - In scope. This is the answer. The reason is that if there would be a net decrease in implement in Country X if people survived injury, then we might expect govt revenue from taxes paid to decrease. 
E - out of scope

D is the answer

Humanitarian considerations aside, sheer economics dictates that count

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

Humanitarian considerations aside, sheer economics dictates that count

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