Q13 - Humanitarian consideration aside, sheer

[MK597]

Choice D is an excessively convoluted way of saying 'jobs die with people not returning instead of other people replacing them'. The core of the argument is basically the following:

Since more people would live --> net earnings will increase --> result in greater GNP and more tax.

We need to connect more people living and earnings increasing. In the real world, more people surviving does not necessarily lead to greater earnings, since they may simply be replaced. If they do get replaced, then (economically speaking) whether they return or not won't affect net level of earnings. This is where (D) is getting at. Without this assumption of no-replacement, this argument falls apart.

This world of no replacement is the 'base' for the comparison 'employment increased'. Thus, when more people live through ST, they would return to their jobs, which would have been eliminated had they not returned. As a result, earnings are increased.

Consider the following illustration:

In this world of non-replacement, the number of jobs is at 100.

An accident occurs in which 50 people are involved who are all employed. They all die. Then, because jobs disappear with these people not returning, the number of job is reduced to 50.

Under the same scenario, let us assume that STs are built and that it allows 10 people to live and return to their work. In this 'non-replacement with ST' world, the number of jobs is 60.

Therefore, 'if more people lived-->higher employment'.



I don't think LSAC expects students to do this much mental gymnastics within the short time period given; rather, a more sane approach would be eliminating choices with negation technique.

A. per capita income comparison. Negated, "per capita incomes are different". So...?

B. At present, no STs exist. Negated, "ST's exist in X". So what.

C. St centers should not be more expensive than treatment elsewhere. Negated, STs are more expensive. We should be able to rule this out conclusively because the scope of the argument is treating injuries that 'ONLY SPECIALIZED TREATMENT CENTERS can provide'. So, comparison of costs is useless

D. Negated, it says "more lives saved --> no increase in employment'. If we substitute employment with 'sources of income,' (which is interchangeable in my opinion under acceptable LSAT assumptions) then, which is pretty relevant.

E. Negated, it says most people in X who are seriously injured in car accidents receive specialized treatment.
So...? What the argument advocates is a 'system'. Individual existence of such centers or treatment is not of concern.

[obobob]

What does the Question Stem tell us?
Necessary Assumption

E) Red flag: "most". And where the heck did "AUTO accidents" come from?


#officialexplanation

(E) auto accidents? out of scope.

(e) also an attractive choice, for it appears to show that people who may get help under the new proposed plan/system, aren't getting it now. however, it is not an assumption on which the argument depends, especially because it limits the scope to automobile accidents.

SO, I was debating between the answer choice (D) and (E) and ended up choosing (E), which is a wrong answer. So I was looking for some explanation about answer choice (E)-- what makes (E) wrong. While I do agree with @Bradleygirard's explanation (limiting scope and adding something unnecessary), I am not sure with saying that (E) is automatically out just because of using the word "automobile" as @Bbirdwell and @ohthatpatrick says. Isn't automobile included in a ground transportation group? I was thinking that automobile is a type of a ground transportation, so I was thinking maybe (E) could be at least partially right. Now I am reviewing the question and seeing that [injured patients from automobile (a type of ground transportation) is not receiving treatment anymore] isn't relevant to the argument anymore, but I am still confused why we would need to consider to think (E) is out automatically just by seeing such words like "most" and "automobile."

[ohthatpatrick]

Sorry for the delay, this one slipped through the cracks.

Our task on Necessary Assumption is to find an answer that is clearly internal to what the author was just thinking as she said her argument.

Our correct answer, when negated, will badly weaken the argument.

"Most" has been wrong on Necessary Assumption 99.9% of the time it has appeared, because who cares whether something is 51% or 49%? Switching from most to not-most (which is technically 50% or less) has such little effect that it could almost never badly weaken the argument.

Would it hurt, or even change, this author's argument if 51% of ppl badly hurt in car accidents receive treatment at specialized centers vs. if 49% currently do?

That's all you're getting when you negate (E), a change from "currently, 51% of people don't go to special centers" to "currently, 49% of people don't go to special centers".

That's why "most" is almost always an immediate dealbreaker.

Yes, auto accidents are related to the topic of ground transportation, but ground transportation had nothing to do with the seriously injured.

The author was talking about using air and ground transportation as a way of SAVING the critically injured. The author never specified in any way the causes of those who are seriously injured. He wasn't saying that they are INJURED as a result of air and ground transportation.

The author is presumably assuming his nationwide system of shuttling people to specialized trauma centers will be applicable to anyone seriously injured, so people seriously injured in auto accidents are covered under that umbrella.

But we have no idea if people hurt in auto accidents are currently getting to specialized trauma centers, and we certainly don't have any idea whether the proportion is above or below 50%.

The specificity of whether "above 50% of a certain type of serious injury currently make it to specialized centers" goes way beyond anything we can infer from the author's ideas.

She does need to assume that "at least sometimes in country X, seriously injured people are not receiving treatment in specialized trauma centers due to a lack of adequate transportation"