Humanitarian considerations aside

Answer choices

1. A

   Irrelevant Relationship9% picked this

   lifetime per-capita income is roughly the same in country X as it is

   The per-capita income need not be the same in both countries for the comparison of the two countries to hold.

   9%
2. B

   Weaken4% picked this

   there are no specialized trauma centers in country X

   This makes it less likely that building a system to convey seriously injured patients around the country will result in saving lives.

   4%
3. C

   Irrelevant Comparison14% picked this

   the treatment of seriously injured persons in trauma centers is not more costly

   The issue is whether the cost of treatment outweighs the additional income that could be expected from saving the lives of seriously injured persons.

   14%
4. D

   Correct64% picked this

   there would be a net increase in employment in country X if more persons

   Why this is right

   The intermediate conclusion assumes that there will be a net increase in employment because it attributes the increased gross national product to “the earnings of these people.” This implies that people who survive serious injury reenter the workforce.

   Skill tested: Necessary Assumption · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   64%
5. E

   Too Strong9% picked this

   most people seriously injured in automobile accidents in country X do not now receive treatment

   Too Strong: most Out of Scope: automobile accidents The word "most" is famously wrong on Necessary Assumption because we so rarely care whether something is true of at least 51% of the time vs. at most 49% of the time. In addition, why are we specifically talking about auto accidents? Nothing in the argument was fixated on a specific type of accident that needs emergency care. If we negate this and say that "most serious auto injuries ARE currently treated in specialized trauma centers", would that weaken? It might start to feel like that does weaken, as though we could argue -- "Bah! Why bother building that system of air/ground transportation for getting people to specialized centers? More than 50% of serious auto injuries are already treated there!" But the author wouldn't be too troubled by that objection. She could say, "I want that system so that the other 49% of auto injuries can also be treated at special centers; also, currently anyone who gets injured on a mountain or a river or any non-automobile place has no way to get treated at those special centers, so I want the system to save their lives."

   9%