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

GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions

Source: Official Guide

Critical Reasoning

Weaken

HARD

...

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.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion reached in the passage?

Over the past five years, the percentage of the NHCP funds spent on actual health care has increased, while the percentage spent on the management of NHCP's program has decreased.

Five years ago the standard of health care in the country Z was better than the standard of health care in other industrialized countries that have national health care programs.

The average salaries of doctors and nurses in country Z are slightly higher than the average salaries of doctors and nurses in other industrialized countries that have national health care programs

National Healthcare programs in other industrialized countries provide free medical care to resident aliens and tourists, as well as to citizens.

Over the past five years, the increase in the absolute amount of funds received by NHCP has averaged approximately two percent above country Z's rate of inflation during that time period.

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: Country Z has a national healthcare system that gives free care to everyone What it does: Sets up the basic context about the healthcare system we'll be discussing 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: The healthcare program got more money over 5 years - both in actual dollars and as a bigger slice of the country's total economic output What it does: Establishes that funding has grown significantly, building on the program description What it is: Supporting evidence Visualization: Year 1: $100M (2% of GDP) → Year 5: $200M (3% of GDP)
Yet the standard of health care in the country Z has decreased.	What it says: Despite more money, healthcare quality actually got worse What it does: Creates a surprising contrast with the increased funding we just learned about What it is: Key evidence Visualization: Healthcare Quality: Year 1: 85/100 → Year 5: 70/100 (despite funding increases)
Meanwhile, the standard of health care in other industrialized countries has increased.	What it says: Other similar countries saw their healthcare quality improve during this same time What it does: Makes Country Z's decline look even worse by comparing it to what normally happens What it is: Comparative evidence Visualization: Other Countries: Year 1: 80/100 → Year 5: 90/100 vs Country Z: 85/100 → 70/100
Clearly, over the past five years, NHCP must have become an overgrown and wasteful bureaucracy.	What it says: The author concludes that the healthcare program became a bloated, inefficient organization What it does: Draws a specific conclusion from all the evidence presented about funding vs. performance What it is: Main conclusion

Argument Flow:

The argument starts by describing Country Z's healthcare system, then presents a puzzle: more funding led to worse results. It strengthens this puzzle by showing other countries improved during the same period, then concludes this pattern proves the system became bureaucratic and wasteful.

Main Conclusion:

NHCP became an overgrown and wasteful bureaucracy over the past five years

Logical Structure:

The argument uses a process of elimination approach - since funding increased but quality decreased (while other countries improved), the author concludes internal inefficiency must be the cause. However, this reasoning assumes bureaucratic waste is the only possible explanation for the funding-quality disconnect.

Prethinking:

Question type:

Weaken - We need to find information that would reduce our belief in the conclusion that NHCP became an overgrown and wasteful bureaucracy

Precision of Claims

The conclusion specifically claims that bureaucratic bloat and waste caused the healthcare quality decline, despite increased funding. We need to target this causal relationship.

Strategy

To weaken this argument, we need to find alternative explanations for why healthcare quality declined despite increased funding. The author assumes that more money should automatically lead to better care, and that poor results must mean bureaucratic waste. We should look for scenarios that show other factors could explain the decline, or that the funding increases weren't actually sufficient given the circumstances.

Answer Choices Explained

Over the past five years, the percentage of the NHCP funds spent on actual health care has increased, while the percentage spent on the management of NHCP's program has decreased.

This choice tells us that a higher percentage of funds went to actual healthcare while a lower percentage went to program management over the past five years. This directly contradicts the conclusion that NHCP became a wasteful bureaucracy. If bureaucratic waste were the problem, we'd expect to see more money going to administration and less to actual care. Since the opposite happened - more efficient allocation of resources toward patient care - this provides a strong alternative explanation for why healthcare quality declined despite increased funding. The problem likely isn't bureaucratic bloat but some other factor not mentioned in the argument.

Five years ago the standard of health care in the country Z was better than the standard of health care in other industrialized countries that have national health care programs.

This choice tells us that five years ago Country Z had better healthcare than other industrialized countries with national programs. While this provides context about Country Z's relative position, it doesn't address the core issue of whether NHCP became bureaucratic and wasteful. Even if Country Z started from a higher baseline, the argument's conclusion about bureaucratic waste over the past five years could still be correct. This doesn't weaken the causal relationship the author draws between funding increases and bureaucratic inefficiency.

The average salaries of doctors and nurses in country Z are slightly higher than the average salaries of doctors and nurses in other industrialized countries that have national health care programs

This choice indicates that doctors and nurses in Country Z earn slightly more than their counterparts in other countries. While higher salaries might explain some increased costs, this doesn't directly challenge the conclusion about bureaucratic waste. In fact, one could argue that higher medical professional salaries might actually improve healthcare quality, making the decline even more puzzling and potentially supporting the bureaucratic waste explanation.

National Healthcare programs in other industrialized countries provide free medical care to resident aliens and tourists, as well as to citizens.

This choice explains that other countries' national healthcare programs cover more people (including non-citizens) than Country Z's program. This difference in coverage scope doesn't address whether NHCP became bureaucratic and wasteful. If anything, covering fewer people should make NHCP's job easier and less expensive, which might actually strengthen the argument that poor performance despite increased funding indicates bureaucratic problems.

Over the past five years, the increase in the absolute amount of funds received by NHCP has averaged approximately two percent above country Z's rate of inflation during that time period.

This choice tells us that funding increases averaged about 2% above inflation. While this provides context about the real value of funding increases, it doesn't challenge the bureaucratic waste conclusion. Whether the increases were modest or substantial relative to inflation, the author's logic about bureaucracy causing declining quality despite any funding increase could still hold. This doesn't provide an alternative explanation for the healthcare quality decline.

Rate this Solution

Tell us what you think about this solution

...

Forum Discussions

Start a new discussion

Post

Previous Attempts

Loading attempts...