#13 - Humanitarian considerations aside, sheer economics

[Brook Miscoski]

Leela,

Even when you are doing an assumption question (where additional information is allowed--even required), you must restrain yourself to the scope of the stimulus and the situation described in the stimulus.

The stimulus specifically argues that the income of those injured people will increase GNP. Therefore, you are not evaluating whether any factor could help increase GNP, you are only evaluating whether that income will increase GNP.

Now, negating (D) shows that will not increase GNP since it does not result in any actual increase in employment in the country. You could try to argue about whether "income" and "net employment" are the same, but only if there is a reasonable contender to compete with (D).

(A) There's no reason why per capita income needs to be the same.
(B) The stimulus concerns a transportation network, not whether the trauma centers already exist.
(C) The stimulus concerns saving lives; increased cost will not automatically show that the program costs more than the benefit it provides.
(E) The stimulus concerns timely access, not whether there is any access at all.

Because none of the other choices are contenders, we do not get to dispute whether "income" and "net employment" are interchangeable terms. We simply pick (D) because it is directly responsive to the claim that the income of those people will positively impact GNP.

[Leela]

Brook, this is extremely helpful. I appreciate all of the constructive advice!

[yrresnik]

Dave’s answer to the original question of this post is most telling about assumption qs in general. There’s a tough dichotomy competing with a thin line in between. 1. Assumption questions must be limited to only what the author MUST believe. 2. He might believe something is vital to his argument that you in the Similar situation would not necessarily believe is vital and thus you consider not to be a must assumption (which is the case here) however in short we don’t care about what you think. This dichotomy is so in contrast that’s why it’s tough

[KG!]

Can someone check my thought process a bit? I was stuck between C and D and ended up choosing D. I thought that if the treatment were costly then it outweighs the ability for the government to generate significant revenue.

Thanks in advance!

[Adam Tyson]

The problem with answer C, KG, is that it compares the cost of treatment in two different places, rather than comparing the cost of the proposed transportation system to the taxes generated by the people saved by that care. It doesn't matter if the cost of treatment in special centers is more costly than treatment at other places, because even if it is more costly, the author thinks that cost will be outweighed by the economic gain from all those saved lives working and earning and spending.

[geraldinecalderon]

I'm having an issue with answer D;

The right answer: There would be a net increase in employment in country X if more persons survived serious injury.

Let us assume that all injured persons were employed prior to their accident. They get injured. They are saved. They return to their job after the accident. Is there a net increase? Not necessarily, because they went from being employed to being injured to returning to employed, and so a net zero in increases of employment (at least within the parameters of people surviving serious injuries). They are not getting MORE jobs. They ~could~, let's say, if some injured persons decided to work a second job, but it's not necessary that they would.

Now, the only way I could argue this, if I was being super nit-picky, is the inclusion of kids. Kids weren't employed prior to serious injury, they get injured, they lived, and go on to get a job, and therefore them surviving their serious injuries leads to a net increase in employment; jobs that would not have been filled had they not survived their injuries.

Is this example a good reason to support the correct answer? I still feel a bit flimsy with this explanation, but I really didn't find the 'net increase in employment' convincing, at least where it concerns adults.

[atierney]

Hello,

There's an interesting theme, on the LSAT, and for some people in general, the tendency to overlook what is, in my opinion, the most important phenomenon (warning: word used loosely) identifiable to man: TIME! The idea here is that, if the people are dead, they can't work, and if they can't work, then we can't tax them! (Notice how death and taxes are both inevitable, and in some ways, mutually exclusive! Dear Lord! I haven't thought that through completely...). So, the "net increase" is the time added to the individual's lives, who would otherwise die without the facilities.

Let me know if you have further questions on this.