Beat The GMAT a GMAT & MBA community

Hello!

We're asked to find the answer that would be cited by a SUPPORTER of the argument; in other words, we want to find the answer that, if true, would most STRENGTHEN the conclusion.

First, of course, we need to identify the conclusion. There are a number of tools we can use to do so: keywords, fact vs opinion and looking for typical conclusion patterns to name a few. In this particular argument the latter two methods would both be useful.

We know that the conclusion is an opinion and that facts are always going to be evidence. When there are only 2 statements and 1 is fact and the other opinion, the opinion is always the conclusion.

In this argument, the second sentence is clearly factual ("have found" indicates a past event, which has to be a fact). Accordingly, the first sentence must be the conclusion.

We could also use classic GMAT conclusion types to narrow it down. One of the most common conclusion types on the GMAT is a proposal or recommendation. Here, the author is recommending that cities should widely disseminate wireless networks, copying rural areas. Again, we identify the first sentence as the conclusion.

So, breaking down the argument:

C: Widely disseminating wireless networks in cities will meet the needs of households, schools and business.

E: Wireless networks work in rural areas.

Another advantage of identifying classic arguments is that they come with built in assumptions. For example, in every proposal/recommendation the author is assuming two things:

1) the plan is practical (i.e. nothing stands in the way of it working); and
2) the outcome of the plan is desirable (i.e. there's some benefit to following the recommendation).

To strengthen a proposal, look for an answer that backs up one of those two assumptions. Our prediction for this question: the correct answer will likely remove some potential obstacle to the plan working.

(A) is exactly what we predicted! The author has used evidence about rural success to draw a conclusion about urban (city) success, so the author must be assuming that there are no key differences between rural and urban wireless networks. Since (A) eliminates a potential disastrous difference, it strengthens the argument.

We could also apply Kaplan's Denial Test - let's look at the opposite of (A):

(anti-A) Urban areas DO pose additional problems for the effective operation of wireless networks.

Well, if urban areas cause wireless network problems, then the plan to go wireless in cities is a bad one! Since "anti-A" weakens the argument, "A" is a strengthener.

(C) doesn't strengthen the argument because it fails to address the gap between the evidence and the conclusion; we already know that wireless networks work great in rural areas - (C) just restates the evidence that we already have and doesn't provide a link between rural and urban success.

Hope that helps!

Stuart

_________________
Stuart Kovinsky, B.A. LL.B.
Kaplan Test Prep & Admissions
Toronto Office
1-800-KAP-TEST
www.kaptest.com

Learn more about me