Gmat prep CR - per capita expenditure

This topic has expert replies
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 79
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 11:16 pm

Gmat prep CR - per capita expenditure

by hk_4u » Sat Dec 19, 2009 12:05 pm
For several years, per capita expenditure on prescription drugs in Voronia rose by fifteen percent or more annually. In order to curb these dramatic increases, the ministry of health prohibited drug manufacturers from raising any of their products' prices. Even though use of prescription drugs did not expand after this price freeze, per capita expenditure for prescription drugs continued to increase by a substantial percentage each year.

Which of the following, if true, most helps to explain why the ministry's action did not achieve its goal?

(A) After price increases were prohibited, drug manufacturers concentrated on producing new medications to replace existing products.
(B) The population of Voronia rose steadily throughout the period.
(C) Improvements in manufacturing processes enabled drug manufacturers to maintain high profit levels on drugs despite the price freeze.
(D) In addition to imposing a price freeze, the government encouraged doctors to prescribe generic versions of common drugs instead of the more expensive brand-name versions.
(E) After price increases were prohibited, some foreign manufacturers of expensive drugs ceased marketing them in Voronia.

OA - A
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

User avatar
Community Manager
Posts: 1537
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 6:10 pm
Thanked: 653 times
Followed by:252 members

by papgust » Sat Dec 19, 2009 7:28 pm
I was able to knock off options B,C,D,E confidently. But i wasn't fully confident with OA as i didn't consider the fact that curbing of product price increases is applicable only for existing products and NOT for new products.

Check this out. Wonderful explanation by stacey.
https://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/for ... t2413.html

Legendary Member
Posts: 869
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 3:49 pm
Location: California
Thanked: 13 times
Followed by:3 members

by heshamelaziry » Thu Dec 24, 2009 5:32 pm
Why A? it does not mean that the new products will be sold for more than the price cap set forth by the government ? What am I missing ?

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 81
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2009 3:12 pm
Location: South Korea
Thanked: 4 times

by sadullaevd » Thu Dec 24, 2009 8:21 pm
plz take a look at previous post,

the link has nice explanation by Stacy
Stay skeptical,
Think critically,
Assume nothing.

Legendary Member
Posts: 869
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 3:49 pm
Location: California
Thanked: 13 times
Followed by:3 members

by heshamelaziry » Thu Dec 24, 2009 8:31 pm
sadullaevd wrote:plz take a look at previous post,

the link has nice explanation by Stacy


I understand her reasoning but I does not make sense to me. Choice A says that the companies are replacing the current medications, so, I concluded that price caps will apply to new medications because they are just a replacement.

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 81
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2009 3:12 pm
Location: South Korea
Thanked: 4 times

by sadullaevd » Thu Dec 24, 2009 8:49 pm
heshamelaziry wrote:
sadullaevd wrote:plz take a look at previous post,

the link has nice explanation by Stacy


I understand her reasoning but I does not make sense to me. Choice A says that the companies are replacing the current medications, so, I concluded that price caps will apply to new medications because they are just a replacement.
I clearly see your point, but maybe "new medications" is meant to be new product name, new price and etc. If this is the case, then government's previous regulation won't work thus...

besides the rest choices don't give any hope, only A.
Stay skeptical,
Think critically,
Assume nothing.

GMAT Instructor
Posts: 1302
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 2:13 pm
Location: Toronto
Thanked: 539 times
Followed by:164 members
GMAT Score:800

by Testluv » Thu Dec 24, 2009 9:50 pm
Hesham,

you have to look at what was being prohibited. What was being prohibited was price increases on "their products".

But if a drug is new, then it's price is also new; therefore, there is no previous price from which it could have increased.

It doesn't matter that the new drug may be more costly than the old drug. And it doesn't even matter that the new drug is performing the same function as the old drug. Yes, this is sneaky on part of the drug manufacturers. They are basically escaping the "spirit" of the ministry prohibition; but because they have not increased the price of any of their drugs, they are not formally in breach of that prohibition.
Kaplan Teacher in Toronto