PrepTest 135, Section 2, Question 13
Humanitarian considerations aside, sheer economics dictates that country(75 more words not shown)
The argument depends on the(2 more words not shown)
- Alifetime per-capita income(13 more words not shown)
- Bthere are no(8 more words not shown)
- Cthe treatment of(13 more words not shown)
- Dthere would be(14 more words not shown)
- Emost people seriously(16 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
The argument asks us to set humanitarian reasons aside and look at the money. Then let's look at both the benefit and the cost.
A nationwide system of helicopters and ambulances could get seriously injured people to specialized care in time to save their lives. The author expects the survivors' earnings to increase national output and tax revenue. That could be a real economic benefit. But how much would the transportation system cost?
Suppose the additional revenue were $100,000 and the new infrastructure cost $1 billion. The existence of a financial benefit wouldn't establish that the plan made economic sense. I'd initially expect an assumption connecting the benefit to the expense: the gains must justify what the system costs.
What we’re looking for
This is a necessary-assumption question, so we should keep that objection in mind without demanding an answer worded exactly like our prediction. The author also relies on the saved lives producing additional economic activity. A missing step in that part of the reasoning could matter too.
Working the answers
- A
The argument doesn't depend on people in the two countries having roughly equal lifetime incomes. Country Y supplies an example of a transportation system, but the economic case is about the gains in country X. The proposal could make economic sense there even if incomes differed greatly.
- B
The proposal concerns transportation to trauma centers, not a claim that country X currently has none. Existing centers could be difficult to reach quickly enough. Better access to them could be the point of the new system.
- C
Specialized treatment could cost more and still be worth the added expense. If the resulting gains were large enough, higher treatment costs wouldn't defeat an economic case. This answer demands no extra treatment cost, when the argument needs benefits that justify its costs.
- DCorrect
This addresses a step earlier than the cost comparison I predicted. The argument counts the survivors' earnings as an addition to the country's economy. For that reasoning to work, saving more people needs to mean more employment overall.
Imagine the survivors simply take jobs that other people would otherwise have held, leaving those other people unemployed. Counting the survivors' paychecks wouldn't show the claimed addition to total earnings or tax revenue. D rules out treating a mere shift in who holds the jobs as the expected increase. It doesn't settle every question about cost; it supplies a requirement for the particular benefit the author invokes.
- E
The injured people needn't mostly be automobile-accident victims. Serious injuries could come from falls, skiing, or other events. Nor does the argument require most car-accident victims to lack specialized treatment now. Helping enough currently underserved people could matter without either of those broader claims.
More Necessary Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Necessary Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.