Country Z's National Health-Care Program (NHCP) provides free health care to all citizens. In the last five years, NHCP has...

GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions

Source: Official Guide

Critical Reasoning

Assumption

MEDIUM

...

Notes

Post a Query

Country Z's National Health-Care Program (NHCP) provides free health care to all citizens. In the last five years, NHCP has received increase funds, both in absolute terms and as a percent of country Z's gross national product. Yet the standard of health care in the country Z has decreased. Meanwhile, the standard of health care in other industrialized countries has increased. Clearly, over the past five years, NHCP must have become an overgrown and wasteful bureaucracy.

The conclusion reached in the passage depends on which of the following assumption?

NHCP should not have received increased funds during the past five years.

In the last five years, the need for health care among country Z's citizens did not increase to beyond the amount of health care that could have been provided by a proper expenditure of the increased funding.

NHCP was suspected of wasteful money management five years ago, but no action was taken to improve NHCP's money management procedures.

The standard of health care in country Z five years ago was good related to the standards of health care in other industrialized countries at that time.

Most other industrialized countries have free national health care programs similar to NHCP.

Solution

Passage Analysis:

Text from Passage	Analysis
Country Z's National Health-Care Program (NHCP) provides free health care to all citizens.	What it says: NHCP gives free healthcare to everyone in Country Z What it does: Sets up the basic context about the healthcare system we'll be analyzing What it is: Background information
In the last five years, NHCP has received increase funds, both in absolute terms and as a percent of country Z's gross national product.	What it says: NHCP got more money over 5 years - both the actual dollar amount and as a bigger slice of the country's total economic output What it does: Establishes that funding increased significantly, building on the healthcare system context What it is: Factual premise Visualization: Year 1: $50M (2% of GNP) → Year 5: $80M (3% of GNP)
Yet the standard of health care in the country Z has decreased.	What it says: Despite more money, healthcare quality got worse in Country Z What it does: Creates a puzzling contrast with the previous funding increase - this is unexpected What it is: Key factual premise Visualization: Healthcare Quality: Year 1: 80/100 → Year 5: 65/100 (despite funding increase)
Meanwhile, the standard of health care in other industrialized countries has increased.	What it says: Other similar countries saw their healthcare quality improve during the same period What it does: Strengthens the puzzle by showing Country Z is going against the normal trend What it is: Comparative evidence Visualization: Other countries: Year 1: 75/100 → Year 5: 85/100 (while Country Z declined)
Clearly, over the past five years, NHCP must have become an overgrown and wasteful bureaucracy.	What it says: The author concludes that NHCP turned into a bloated, inefficient organization What it does: Provides the author's explanation for why more money led to worse healthcare What it is: Author's main conclusion

Argument Flow:

The argument starts with context about Country Z's free healthcare system, then presents a puzzle: more funding led to worse healthcare while other countries improved. The author concludes this must be due to bureaucratic waste and inefficiency.

Main Conclusion:

NHCP has become an overgrown and wasteful bureaucracy over the past five years.

Logical Structure:

The author uses elimination reasoning - since funding increased but quality decreased (unlike other countries), the problem must be internal inefficiency. However, this assumes no other factors could explain the decline, which is the key assumption the argument depends on.

Prethinking:

Question type:

Assumption - We need to find what the author must believe to be true for their conclusion to make sense. The author concludes that NHCP became wasteful and bureaucratic based on the fact that more funding led to worse healthcare.

Precision of Claims

The key claims involve quality comparisons (healthcare standards decreased vs increased), quantity measurements (funding increases in absolute and percentage terms), and causal relationships (bureaucratic waste causing poor performance).

Strategy

To find assumptions, we need to identify what could make the conclusion false while keeping all the stated facts true. The author jumps from 'more money + worse results' directly to 'must be bureaucratic waste.' We need to think about what other explanations the author is ruling out and what must be true for bureaucratic waste to be the right answer.

Answer Choices Explained

NHCP should not have received increased funds during the past five years.

'NHCP should not have received increased funds during the past five years.' This is not an assumption the argument depends on. The author isn't arguing that NHCP shouldn't have received more funding - rather, the author is saying that despite getting more funding, the results got worse due to bureaucratic inefficiency. The argument actually accepts that NHCP did receive increased funds as a given fact, not something that shouldn't have happened.

'In the last five years, the need for health care among country Z's citizens did not increase to beyond the amount of health care that could have been provided by a proper expenditure of the increased funding.' This is the correct assumption. For the author to conclude that bureaucratic waste caused the decline in healthcare quality, we must assume that the increased funding should have been adequate to maintain or improve care if spent properly. If healthcare needs skyrocketed beyond what even the increased funding could reasonably cover, then the decline in quality wouldn't necessarily indicate waste - it could simply mean the funding increase wasn't sufficient for the new demands.

NHCP was suspected of wasteful money management five years ago, but no action was taken to improve NHCP's money management procedures.

'NHCP was suspected of wasteful money management five years ago, but no action was taken to improve NHCP's money management procedures.' The argument doesn't require any information about previous suspicions or past management issues. The author is concluding that NHCP became wasteful over the past five years based on the recent funding-versus-results pattern, regardless of what might have been suspected or done previously.

The standard of health care in country Z five years ago was good related to the standards of health care in other industrialized countries at that time.

'The standard of health care in country Z five years ago was good related to the standards of health care in other industrialized countries at that time.' This comparison to other countries five years ago isn't necessary for the argument. The author's conclusion is based on the fact that Country Z's healthcare declined while receiving more funding, and that other countries improved during this same period. What matters is the direction of change, not the starting point relative to other countries.

Most other industrialized countries have free national health care programs similar to NHCP.

'Most other industrialized countries have free national health care programs similar to NHCP.' The argument doesn't need other countries to have similar systems. The author uses the improvement in other industrialized countries as a benchmark to show that healthcare quality can improve over time, suggesting that Country Z's decline is unusual and points to internal problems. Whether those other countries have free national programs or different systems doesn't affect this reasoning.

Rate this Solution

Tell us what you think about this solution

...

Forum Discussions

Start a new discussion

Post

Previous Attempts

Loading attempts...