The price of health insurance as a percentage of an individual’s overa

Question

The price of health insurance as a percentage of an individual’s overall monthly income does not necessarily indicate quality of care. If it did, individuals who spent a greater percentage of their income on health insurance would receive better quality of care, or vice versa.

If the statements above are all true, which of the following can be properly inferred on the basis of them?

A. If individuals receiving free or reduced cost health insurance from the government were removed from the sample, there would be a strong correlation between cost and quality of care.

B. Reducing an individual’s spending on health insurance as a percent of their income will not necessarily lead to lower quality of care.

C. Looking at the dollar amount spent on health insurance rather than the percentage would show a correlation between amount of money spent and quality of care.

D. It is probable that individuals who spend more on health insurance in fact get a lower quality of care than do those who spend less on health care.

E. Individuals who spend the greatest percentage of their income on health insurance never receive high quality of care from medical providers.

Skywalker18 · Answer

The price of health insurance as a percentage of an individual’s overall monthly income does not necessarily indicate quality of care. If it did, individuals who spent a greater percentage of their income on health insurance would receive better quality of care, or vice versa.

Type- inference
Boil it down - The above argument does not take into the differences in overall monthly income of individuals

A. If individuals receiving free or reduced cost health insurance from the government were removed from the sample, there would be a strong correlation between cost and quality of care. - Incorrect

B. Reducing an individual’s spending on health insurance as a percent of their income will not necessarily lead to lower quality of care. - Correct - If it did, individuals who spent a greater percentage of their income on health insurance would receive better quality of care, or vice versa.

C. Looking at the dollar amount spent on health insurance rather than the percentage would show a correlation between amount of money spent and quality of care.- Incorrect - may be true but need not be true

D. It is probable that individuals who spend more on health insurance in fact get a lower quality of care than do those who spend less on health care. - Incorrect - we are given money spent on insurance as a percentage of monthly income

E. Individuals who spend the greatest percentage of their income on health insurance never receive high quality of care from medical providers. - Incorrect -- never is too extreme

Answer B

Bunuel · Answer

VERITAS PREP OFFICIAL SOLUTION:

Whenever a GMAT question asks for something that can be "properly inferred" from a critical reasoning argument, remember that your job is to fully understand the argument presented and then look for the answer choice that is guaranteed by the information presented. Remember, the information doesn't have to be interesting - it just needs to be something that must be true given the information presented.

In this case, you are told there's no correlation between the percentage of an individual's income spent on healthcare and the quality of healthcare they receive. (Further, if it did exist, the argument states that either individuals who spend a greater percentage of their income on health insurance would get better or worse quality of care.)

The only real information that you have here is the fact that increased (or decreased) spending on health insurance as a percentage of income does not "necessarily indicate quality of care." You don't have any information on absolute amounts spent on health insurance or about the health insurance itself. From this, you can eliminate (A), which deals with eliminating a particular type of health insurance from the sample and (C), which deals with absolute dollar amounts. Choice (D) can also be eliminated since you are told that there is no correlation in either direction.

Between (E) and (B), choice (E) can be eliminated since there is just no way to prove that individuals who spend a large percentage of their income on health insurance never get quality care from medical providers - the entire point of the argument is that there is no correlation.

Choice (B) must be correct. If there is no correlation between spending on health insurance as a percentage of income, then reducing spending on health insurance as a percent of income may or may not affect quality of care. The words here "will not necessarily lead to lower quality of care" are particularly important, since it links back to the argument that there is just no way to tell.

manjot123 · Answer

DavidTutorexamPAL 
why not option b?

Abhishek009 · Answer

Dear  manjot123

Please check OA, the answer is (B)

RajdeepGM · Answer

"Not necessarily" is the clue.

Posted from my mobile device

saby1410 · Answer

KarishmaB 
what does the relationship of  vice versa  says

If it did, individuals who spent a greater percentage of their income on health insurance would receive better quality of care, or vice versa

i believe spending more money on health insurance always leads to better care, or  if spending less money on health insurance means you won't get good care

but in official solution it says

argument states that either individuals who spend a greater percentage of their income on health insurance would get better or worse quality of care.

is the worse quality of care is linked with spend a greater percentage of their income on health insurance ?

KarishmaB · Answer

Look at it in relation to the previous sentence:

The price of health insurance as a percentage of an individual’s overall monthly income does not necessarily indicate quality of care.
If it did, individuals who spent a greater percentage of their income on health insurance would receive better quality of care, or vice versa.

It says 'A does not necessarily indicate B. If it did, those who do more A, would get more B or vice vera'
'vice versa' means 'those who do less A, would get less B'

Basically the sentence is telling you that A is not linked to B. So a higher A doesn't mean a higher B and a lower A doesn't mean a lower B.

That makes sense.

Also, more money spent on health insurance would normally imply better care but 'a higher percentage of salary' wouldn't. It depends on what the actual salary is. With a high salary, the percentage required will be low but with a low salary percentage required will be high.

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

The price of health insurance as a percentage of an individual’s overa

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

The price of health insurance as a percentage of an individual’s overa

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