52.3.13 Humanitarian considerations aside

Accounts PlayableAccounts Playable Live Sage ⭐
in Logical Reasoning 3107 karma
This is another one that just baffles me. I don't understand how D is a necessary assumption. I also don't really understand how C is not correct. Here was my breakdown:

Country X should institute a nationwide system of air/ground transportation for getting seriously hurt people to trauma centers (this is the MP). Why should they do this? Quick access to the medical care that only these specialized centers can provide can save lives (this seems like a pretty good reason). The earnings of these people would increase country X's GNP. Also, the taxes on these earnings would increase government revenues.

What I am looking for: The argument is assuming that the reasons why country X should put in the system are good reasons. Additionally, the argument is assuming that the new air/ground system wouldn't cost the government more than the increase in tax revenue from the earnings of the saved people.

Answer A: Why do we need to assume that per-capita income is the same? Sure, this would strengthen the argument (I think), but it isn't necessary.

Answer B: This also isn't necessary. In fact, I think the argument weakly implies that specialized trauma centers already exist in country X. If they didn't, where would the air/ground systems link to?

Answer C: After typing this out, I think I get why this one is wrong. This answer choice doesn't paraphrase one of the things I was looking for very well at all. We don't need to assume that the trauma centers are more costly, but that the air/ground system is. Also, this answer choice isn't even talking about costs to the government, so you would have to assume that is, which we can't do.

Answer D: This is the correct answer, but whaaa? I looked up the GNP formula (it's been a while since Econ101), but it is consumption+Gov Exp+Investments+Exports+Foreign Production by domestic companies-Domestic Production by foreign companies. Why must there be a net increase in employment? Even if this answer choice wasn't referencing the GNP formula (which I don't really think this answer was since the passage would have probably defined GNP if it were relevant), I still don't see how net employment MUST increase. What if the surviving people just kept their same job/didn't get fired/didn't leave because of the injury? Couldn't net employment stay the same? For this answer to even possibly work, don't you have to make the dubious assumption that the earnings of the surviving people increase net employment? Huh?

Answer E: Automobile accidents? Way to specific for a NA
Show Related Discussions

Comments

  • DumbHollywoodActorDumbHollywoodActor Alum Inactive ⭐
    edited October 2015 7468 karma
    @"Accounts Playable"
    Whoa! In a way, you just answered your own question. Can you see that the argument is equating “GNP" and "taxes paid on the earnings” mentioned in the premises with the "sheer economics” of the conclusion? But, as you say, the economics of a nation deal with far more than GNP and taxes. The argument is failing to consider so many other different variables that determine the state of an economy. One of those variables is unemployment. If there wasn’t a net increase in employment, clearly this conclusion that sheer economics dictates action is worthless. That’s why D is correct.

    C is wrong because the argument doesn’t deal with places “elsewhere”. Yes, it mentions country Y, but its existence plays no part in the argument. C is a clear comparison trap.
  • Accounts PlayableAccounts Playable Live Sage ⭐
    3107 karma
    @DumbHollywoodActor

    So, answer D is denying something that contradicts the "sheer economics" is the only criteria that is relevant? That makes sense. The only thing I still don't really understand is why does employment need to increase? Why can't it just stay the same?
  • DumbHollywoodActorDumbHollywoodActor Alum Inactive ⭐
    edited October 2015 7468 karma
    @"Accounts Playable"
    Why do something if it’s only going to maintain the status quo? I guess another way of seeing it is to imagine that the new program only saved the lives of unemployed people. If that were true, then the premises would become irrelevant because the GNP wouldn’t substantially increase.
  • nye8870nye8870 Alum ⭐
    1749 karma
    @"Accounts Playable" said:
    why does employment need to increase?
    (D) there would be a "net" increase in employment... --____ Notice it does not say a "gross" increase. As you questioned, employment need not necessarily increase overall.. just that the people who get saved then become workers who earn money and pay taxes. If they got saved and did not become workers the argument starts to fall apart. That is the negation test for this one (in my view).
Sign In or Register to comment.