Logical reasoning PrepTest 135 · Section 2 · Question 13

Incorrect. If the argument relied on Countries X and Y being similar, this answer would be in play but, as discussed in the Anticipation, the argument does not rely on that comparison. Additionally, even if it did, it wouldn't be necessary for lifetime per-capita income to be roughly the same—the argument relies only on the program having a positive impact on the number of people working, not on the baseline being the same.

Incorrect. If anything, the argument is relying on the existence of these trauma centers—otherwise, it's unclear how implementing only a transportation system would help!

Incorrect. The treatment can be more expensive as long as it's more than balanced out by the tax revenue generated by the earnings of those saved.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Necessary Premise

Stimulus Summary:
Goal - Saving the lives of seriously injured people to increase government revenue
Approach - Like Country Y, implement a nationwide emergency transportation system
Why? - This will save lives, and thus the earnings of the people will increase GNP, thereby increasing the tax base

Answer Anticipation:
This argument recommends adopting a certain approach in reaching the goal of increasing government revenue.

The first hint we get at a specific flaw is that the program is compared to one implemented in Country Y. Normally, this would presage a comparison flaw, and we'd be looking for an answer stating that Country X and Country Y are similar in key aspects that would allow this program to work. However, that won't be the case here because the argument doesn't rely on that comparison to hold. While the argument does use Country Y as an example of a country that implemented a similar program, it doesn't then go on to say that Country X should implement the program because it worked in Country Y at raising revenue—it doesn't even state that the program did raise revenue in Country Y. Since the argument presents a separate economic argument for the conclusion that is unrelated to Country Y, the argument doesn't have a comparison flaw, so we have to look elsewhere.

So where should we look? Well, there's a long chain of events the argument walks through to explain why this program will increase revenues. The program would save lives, thus increase the number of people working, thereby driving GDP up, and therefore increasing the tax base and augmenting revenue. Each of those steps could break down somehow—maybe the people saved can't work, or the cost of the program is higher than the revenue raised from the increased tax base. The correct answer will need to establish that each of these steps is justified.

Answer Explanation:
This answer addresses the first "step" of the chain that the argument uses to justify the increase in government revenues that would be seen by implementing this program. If there isn't a net increase in employment by saving people from these accidents, then they wouldn't have earnings that would contribute to GNP and be taxed. It is therefore necessary for the argument.

Key Takeaway:
Be careful about misdirects! Here, the argument tried to make you think that the comparison with Country Y was key to the logic, but since it didn't establish anything about the success of that program, nor did it draw any other comparisons to Country Y when walking through the argument in the premises, that was a throwaway line. Make sure you understand what role statements play in an argument! Sometimes, identifying a line as an aside or as background can help you avoid traps.

Incorrect. First, even if this would only get a significant minority to specialized trauma centers, as long as it saved enough lives to significantly increase the tax base, the argument could hold. Second, the argument is about getting people to these trauma.