Critical Reasoning

Coherent solutions for the problem of reducing health-care costs cannot be found within the current piecemeal system of paying these costs. The reason is that this system gives health-care providers and insurers every incentive to shift, wherever possible, the costs of treating illness onto each other or any other party, including the patient. That clearly is the lesson of the various reforms of the 1980s: push in on one part of this pliable spending balloon and an equally expensive bulge pops up elsewhere. For example, when the government health-care insurance program for the poor cut costs by disallowing payments for some visits to physicians, patients with advanced illness later presented themselves at hospital emergency rooms in increased numbers.

The argument proceeds by

(A) showing that shifting costs onto the patient contradicts the premise of health-care reimbursement
(B) attributing without justification fraudulent intent to people
(C) employing an analogy to characterize interrelationships
(D) denying the possibility of a solution by disparaging each possible alternative system
(E) demonstrating that cooperation is feasible by citing an instance

This one was more dangerous than a 10 pound plutonium bomb.

stuck between C and E.

If i understand "argument proceeds by" means argument structure in terms of analogy.

Experts please advice if incorrect.

2.42min...I went for B

My guess for the question "the argument proceeds by assuming what?"

This is a method of reasoning question (the stem "the argument proceeds by" is always indicative of this) and I would almost bet my pants this is an LSAT question because of the complexity of the reasoning and the wording of the answer choices. I don't know that I've seen a method of reasoning this complex from a GMAT source, but then again I haven't done THAT many GMAT questions . At any rate I'll give it a stab at the risk of being totally off base.

c: solution to health-care costs cannot be found within current system
p: because the current system gives p+i incentive to shift cost to others
p: a fall in one part will cause a rise in another
p: an example to show the up down relationship

(A) health care reimbursement is not mentioned in the problem (remember that "method of reasoning" falls under the prove family and thus, any information or event described in the answer that is not in the stimulus makes the answer incorrect)

(B) again this passage mentions nothing about fradulent intent. its not claiming that what the health care companies or patients are doing is fradulent.

(C) this is basically the last premise above so that would work

(D) the argument actually only mentions one "system" which is to say the current one. its not an ad nausem argument against each possible system that could exist

(E) the argument does cite an instance but that instance certainly doesn't demonstrate feasibility

I go for C; However, we can use expert help in this question.

As the above poster points out this is a method of argument question, which is fairly rare on the GMAT although you're more likely to get a question like than some crazy-heavy formal logic LSAT question.

The argument "proceeds by" employing an analogy--pressing on one part of a balloon causes another to bulge out--to characterize the interrelationships among the different parts of the healthcare system: if you cut costs in one area of healthcare, costs will increase in another. So, choice [spoiler](C)[/spoiler] is definitely correct.

Thanks Testluv for the explanation , i tripped at this question .You are right , this is LSAT question which is quite unlikely to appear at GMAT . Trying to solve some heavy logic questions for following reasons :-

1] Working out the logic muscles .
2] Solving hard question to get an ease at GMAT CR and RC as well .
3] LSAT CRs are longer and more time consuming , hence that would help on GMAT front i.e to work on accuracy and timing .

Correct me if i am going in wrong direction .

Hi AimGmat,

actually what I was trying to say is this question is actually not as bad some of the others I see posted. You may actually get a question like this.

Regarding practicing on LSAT questions that are heavily grounded in formal logic: your reasons are good but you have to ask yourself whether your time would be better spent doing more GMATesque questions. And, LSAT questions that rely too heavily on formal logic really are outside the scope of the GMAT.

If you're going to practice with LSAT questions, practice on these types:

--strengthen/weaken (far less likely to contain formal logic and many of the patterns that appear in this question type overlap on the 2 tests)
--assumption
--role of statement (like boldface in GMAT)

But you should be careful with inference questions (LSAT likes to use a lot of formal logic in inference), and you shouldn't at all bother with all the LSAT-specific questions.

If you want to know more of what I think on the matter, just ask, and I'll try digging up some of my older more extensive posts on the topic.