Political Candidate: Government subsidized prescription drug plans tha

Question

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.

Bunuel · Accepted Answer

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

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.

(E) This choice correctly states that the first bold-faced statement is an observation the candidate makes. However, the second bold-faced statement—that consumers cannot predict their future health needs—is not an assertion that the candidate opposes; instead, he uses this claim to support his ultimate position.

x97agarwal · Answer

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.

dentobizz · Answer

Bumping for review and further disscussion
New GmatClub project Click here

Theory on Boldfaced Questions
GMAT HACKS
https://www.gmathacks.com/critical-reaso ... oning.html

MANGOOSH
https://magoosh.com/gmat/2013/gmat-criti ... questions/

MASTER GMAT
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fb6tkQHa0Wo

Veritas prep
https://www.gmatclub.com/forum/veritas-prep-resource-links-no-longer-available-399979.html#/2013/03 ... -the-gmat/

Manhattan gmat
https://www.manhattangmat.com/blog/index ... -question/

Unlimited gmat
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Jct_pPgl8M

e-gmat
https://gmatclub.com/forum/many-gmat-tes ... 45093.html

Kaplan
https://gmatclub.com/forum/bold-face-que ... 62893.html

Knewton
https://www.knewton.com/blog/gmat/2010/0 ... ion-types/

natashakumar91 · Answer

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

Mahmud6 · Answer

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.

rakaisraka · Answer

Hi experts, I'm not able to understand difference between B and C? Both seem same.
Thanks

sayantanc2k · Answer

"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.

SM15 · Answer

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.
S1 - Ultimately opposes is incorrect
S2 - It is not evidence

Correct answer : 
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.
S1 - Observation; Unfortunate ( not like buying a car ) 
S2- Assertion

heyaa · Answer

Though I was able answer C for this, but can someone try to break the argument into roles each sentences play?

guddo · Answer

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?

The candidate argues that choice-based prescription drug plans look attractive but are actually risky for older and disabled people.  The first boldface portion  is the candidate’s own observation that these plans are appealing in a misleading way. The second boldface portion is one reason why consumer choice is unreliable: people cannot predict their  future health needs .

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

This is incorrect. The candidate does not argue against the first boldface portion. He agrees that the plans are deceptively appealing. Also, the second boldface portion is not the ultimate claim; it is support for the final recommendation.

(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.

This is close, but not precise. The candidate is not opposed to the first boldface statement itself. He is opposed to the plans described in that statement. The statement itself is his own accepted observation.

(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.

This is correct. The first boldface portion is something the candidate accepts: the plans are appealing to many stakeholders, but deceptively so. The second boldface portion supports his final position that older and disabled individuals should not be forced into risky choice-based drug coverage.

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

This is incorrect. The candidate does not argue against the first boldface portion. He uses it as part of his own criticism of the plans.

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

This is incorrect. The candidate does make the first observation, but he does not oppose the second boldface portion. He relies on it as evidence.

Answer: (C)

egmat · Answer

Hi heyaa,

Nice work landing on  C . Since you want to see the skeleton of the argument, let's label each sentence by the job it does. The trick with boldface questions is to first find the  conclusion , then sort everything else into either "supports it" or "sets it up."

The conclusion (ultimate position) is the last sentence:

"Older and disabled individuals... should be offered drug coverage alternatives that do not force them to gamble with their health."

Everything else exists to push you toward that recommendation. Here is the sentence-by-sentence map:

Sentence 1 (boldface 1):  "...are deceptively appealing to numerous stakeholders."  - An  observation the candidate accepts as true but views as unfortunate.  The word  "deceptively"  is the tell: he agrees the plans  look  appealing, but treats that appeal as a bad thing to warn against. He is  not  arguing against it (kills D) and he is  not  opposed to the observation itself (kills B) - he's the one making it.

Sentence 2:  "However, buying prescription drug coverage... is not like buying a car."  - A  supporting premise  (an analogy) that begins explaining  why  the appeal is deceptive.

Sentence 3:  "The consumer cannot predict his or her future health needs."  - Another  supporting premise  backing up the analogy.

Sentence 4 (boldface 2):  "...this renders informed consumer choice meaningless and makes securing appropriate coverage a crap shoot."  - An  assertion the candidate advances to support his conclusion.  "Crap shoot" directly feeds the final "gamble with their health" recommendation.

Sentence 5:  The  conclusion , as noted above.

So the structure is:  conceded-but-unfortunate observation  -  premises explaining why  -  supporting assertion  -  recommendation.  That is exactly the pairing C describes: boldface  1  = the unfortunate observation, boldface  2  = a supporting assertion.

Answer: C

Political Candidate: Government subsidized prescription drug plans tha

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

Political Candidate: Government subsidized prescription drug plans tha

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