#13 - Humanitarian considerations aside, sheer economics

[PowerSteve]

With respect to question 13 from the second logical reasoning section of September '07, I can understand why none of the other choices are correct. However, I'm still not entirely satisfied with choice D. My understanding is that the correct answer to an assumption question is something that is absolutely necessary in order for the argument in the stimulus to follow logically.

Although perhaps very unlikely, I can imagine several scenarios in which there would not be a net increase in employment in country X if more persons survived serious injury, and yet the earnings of the people whose lives were saved would still result in a substantial increase in country X's gross national product, and the taxes paid on those earnings would substantially augment government revenues. For instance, country X is a hypothetical country; we know absolutely nothing about the range of incomes or the structure of taxes. Perhaps the vast majority of the people whose lives are saved are only those people who can afford private transportation, and perhaps those people earn a tremendous amount of money. Lets also say that in country X those who make the most money have to pay an incredibly large percentage of taxes (why not say 90%). If these people didn't survive such accidents, there could be other people to join the work force (keeping the level of employment steady) and yet they wouldn't be capable of earning as much as those experienced wealthy people. Also, new employees don't have to pay any tax in country X.

I know my hypothetical seems far-fetched, but why couldn't it be possible? And if it is possible, does that create a problem for answer choice D? I'm I incorrect in my understanding that the answer choice to an assumption question must be something that is absolutely necessary in order for the argument in the stimulus to follow logically?

Thanks in advance for any clarification!

~Steve

[Steve Stein]

Thanks for your question. You're right--the answer to an assumption is something that is necessary for the conclusion to be valid. That is not the same thing as being sufficient to prove the conclusion.

If, for example, I want to conclude that Mike is a great tennis player, one necessary assumption would be that he knows how to bounce a tennis ball. Without that assumption (that is, if he actually doesnt know how to bounce a tennis ball), my conclusion would fail. So that would be a correct answer to an assumption question.

But, as is the case with your example, allowing for that assumption does not guarantee that Mike is a great tennis player (-even if he knows how to bounce a ball, that would not guarantee that he is a great player).

Let me know whether that makes sense--thanks!

~Steve

[PowerSteve]

Thanks for the response Steve! Unfortunately I'm still a bit confused though. I thought that the hypothetical scenario which I described demonstrated that the correct answer choice to the problem is not necessary for the argument to follow logically. Yes, the truth of the correct answer choice would strengthen the argument, but I believe there are ways of completing the argument so that it follows logically without the truth of the correct answer choice (as I attempted to illustrate with my hypothetical scenario). I'm guessing there's probably something wrong with the reasoning in my hypothetical - I just can't figure out what it is . I'd appreciate it if you could provide some insight. Thanks!

~Steve

[Dave Killoran]

Hey Steve,

Let me jump in quickly and add a point or two. In reading your original post, I see a distinction between what is necessary for the argument, and what is actually true in real life (or, at least, in this Country X they created).

They key is to understand that the author believes in the assumption, and this is the case whether or not it actually works that way in real life. It's clear in the argument that the author believes that saving these people is related to an increase in earnings: "could save the lives of many people...would result in a substantial increase in GNP...and taxes." The assumption being that more people in the workforce leads to more production, etc. That's how the author views the world. And, in this instance, all we are being asked to do is identify what the author was thinking while making this argument, not to dispute whether it would occur the way the author thinks it will.

Really rough analogy of the debate here:

Argument: If I had wings, I could fly to the moon.

Assumption: If you have wings, you can fly.

Your objection: Even if you have wings, you might not be able to fly.

So, your objection makes sense, but that doesn't change the fact that the argument assumes that if you have wings, you can fly. In short, you want to identify what the author is thinking (even if you don't necessarily believe it), and not insert your own thinking.

Please let me know if that helps. Thanks!

[PowerSteve]

Thanks for the response Dave! Unfortunately I don't think my objection was clear. I understand that the correct answer to an assumption question does not need to be something that is both necessary and sufficient for the argument, and I don't really think your analogy parallels my reasoning (or at least it doesn't parallel what I was trying to get across). Let me alter the argument from the stimulus to a simplified version and explain my objection from there:

Premise 1: X should institute a transportation system to trauma centers.
Premise 2: Timely access to these trauma centers will save lives.
Conclusion: The earnings of the people whose lives would be saved would increase X's GNP, etc.

One thing that I think would qualify as an assumption here is: If X institutes such a transportation system, it will result in more timely access, for at least some, to these trauma centers. This of course is not sufficient for the conclusion to follow, but it is necessary in order to link the two premises together.

I see the correct answer choice as linking the second premise to the conclusion by explaining how the saved lives could result in an increase in X's GNP, etc. My objection, however, is not that this connection does not necessitate that there would be an increase in X's GNP, etc. Rather, my objection is that there are other possible ways to connect the second premise with the conclusion, and so the connection articulated in the correct answer choice is not necessary.

In the hypothetical in my original post I was not trying to explain what is true in real life (or Country X). Instead, I was trying to demonstrate that since we don't know what is true in Country X, there could be a way of connecting that second premise to the conclusion distinct from the way in which answer choice D does. Namely, it is possible for people's lives to be saved, no net increase in employment in country X to occur as the result of the survivals, and still Country X's GNP, etc. could result from the survival of the saved people.

I apologize for beating this to death - I'm just trying to figure out what flaw(s) exist in my reasoning so that I have a better understanding of assumption questions in general.

Thanks,
Steve

[Adam Tyson]

Maybe I can help. I think you have your premises and conclusion a little mixed up on this one. As I read it, they should be:

P: Timely access to trauma centers will save lives
P: The earnings of the people whose lives would be saved would increase X's GNP
P: Taxes paid would augment revenue
C: For economic reasons alone, X should institute a transportation system to trauma centers

The premises "saving lives" and "increasing GNP" all support the idea that Country X should provide transportation. So, which answer choice is necessary if it's true that economics dictates the transport system? If we negate D, what impact does it have on the conclusion that a transport system is the right thing, economically? If there is no net gain in employment from saving these lives, that means whatever earnings the survivors make after survival must be offset by reduced earnings elsewhere in the economy, such that we're looking at no better than a wash. In that case, economics would no longer drive that decision, right?

Hope that helps. Lots of cooks in the kitchen on this one!

Adam

[PowerSteve]

Thanks so much Adam. Yes, you are definitely correct that I had my premises and conclusion mixed up there Not sure what I was thinking when I put that together. It's pretty S-A-D that I need Steve, Adam and Dave to help me figure this one out

I'm still a bit confused though. I'm not sure why it follows, as you wrote, that no net gain in employment from saving these lives means what you say it means. I'm understanding the notion of a net gain in employment to mean more employed people. Couldn't less people, or the same amount of people, still have more earnings and pay more in taxes? Perhaps the people whose lives are saved are much bigger earners and pay much more in taxes than everyone else in Country X. In this case, even if there is no net gain in employment from those very special lives being saved, there could still be more money earned and more taxes paid, and so economics could drive the decision. I'm guessing there's more flaws in my reasoning...let me have it

~Steve

[Steve Stein]

Hello again!

As you said, the correct answer to an Assumption question is the one that is necessary for the author's conclusion to be logically valid. What is the author's main conclusion in this case?

Economic considerations dictate that country X should set up a safety system.

This is based on the fact that it could save people whose earnings, in turn, would increase the GNP.

For this argument to make sense, for it to be logically valid, the author must be assuming that those lives saved would lead to increased earnings.

With this assumption in place, the argument makes sense:

Premise: Timely access to trauma centers would save lives.
Assumption: This would lead to an increase in employment.
Sub-conclusion: This would increase earnings and the GNP.

Conclusion: Economic considerations dictate that the trauma centers be built.

Your hypothetical outlier scenario presents one remote possibility (and the country could just not build any trauma centers and hope for the best), but that doesn' t change what should be done based on economic considerations.


Interesting question. Let me know whether that clears it up!

Thanks!
~Steve

[PowerSteve]

Thanks Steve! That's it for me for now with this question...I appreciate all of your patience and the collaborative effort to help me understand!

~Steve

[RENG]

This is an assumption question about the economics of highway emergency medical response systems. I didn't choose D because the choice specified that employment would increase, not that net revenue would increase, and since its perfectly plausible that the cost of the project would outweigh the additional revenue even if there was a net gain in employment it doesn't make the argument make sense.

Did I overthink this because it isn't a flaw question but merely an assumption question, and that the argument can still be terrible and full of flaws even with the necessary assumption?

Thanks.