PT 52-3-13 Humanitarian considerations aside

    • December 28, 2015 at 2:15 pm #1111
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      So I need some tomhelp figure this one out. I think I get the gist,but I’m not sure. Mr. Kim if you see this don’t cyber hit me upside the head lol. I tried to think about other easier ¬†assumption questions as I approached this question, but it’s not clicking as much as I would hope. I think I can see why all four answers are wrong, but I’m having trouble understanding exactly where ¬†the core of the argument is. I understand the conclusion is basically the middle of the first sentence, and the premise(s) are everything below.

    • December 29, 2015 at 7:04 am #1117
      dannypearlberg
      Participant

      The conclusion is that, for economical reasons, country X should institute a transportation system for getting people to specialized trauma centers. According to the author, it makes economical sense to do this because it would save the lives of many people, and this in turn would result in both an increase in the gross national product, as well as an increase in government revenues from the taxes paid on these earnings.

      I recommend first looking for a flaw, rather than looking specifically for a necessary assumption. The flaw here is that even if the transportation system saves the lives of many people, this doesn’t necessarily mean that more money will be made. Maybe country X has a crappy economy and saving lives would result in even higher levels of unemployment and poverty. So before looking at the answer choices I would prephrase the correct answer along the following lines: The argument depends on the assumption that if more lives are saved, more money will be made as a result. As it turns out (as is often the case on a necessary assumption question) none of the answer choices look exactly like my prephrase, but the prephrase helps direct us towards answer choice D. And notice that if D were false- that is, if more persons survived serious injury there would NOT be a net increase in employement- then the argument falls apart.

    • December 29, 2015 at 7:32 am #1119
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      Thanks, I believe I look for the flaw,but that was the problem.i think I did everything you just did, but it took me longer because I was thrown off by the conditionals. I was thinking about whether the flaw would come from that particular statement, the government revenue part, or even the specialized transport part of the premise. I always make things harder than what they should be lol.

    • December 29, 2015 at 7:50 am #1120
      dannypearlberg
      Participant

      It sounds like you’re approaching these questions the right way- certainly there can be more than one flaw in an argument, but if there is, only one of those flaws will show up in the answer choices. For example, in this argument there is also an assumption (which I think you picked up on) that the nationwide system would indeed provide timely access to the specialized trauma centers. However, (i) this assumption doesn’t show up in any of the answer choices; and (ii) it’s not as directly connected to the main conclusion as is the assumption that if more lives are saved, more money will be made as a result. For even if the nationwide system would indeed provide timely access, the conclusion still doesn’t follow.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.