1000 CR TEST1 no2

magical cook · Posted: Sat Mar 24, 2007 3:26 pm Post subject: 1000 CR TEST1 no2

Hi,

It may be due to my lack of reading skill, but I had honestly no idea what the answer is.. (turned out to be B)) Can everyone get right answer this with no issue??

Contrary to the charges made by some of its opponents, the provisions of the new deficit-reduction law for indiscriminate cuts in the federal budget are justified. Opponents should remember that the New Deal pulled this country out of great economic troubles even though some of its programs were later found to be unconstitutional.

The author’s method of attacking the charges of certain opponents of the new deficit-reduction law is to

(A) attack the character of the opponents rather than their claim
(B) imply an analogy between the law and some New Deal programs
(C) point out that the opponents’ claims imply a dilemma
(D) show that the opponents’ reasoning leads to an absurd conclusion
(E) show that the New Deal also called for indiscriminate cuts in the federal budget

rajesh_ctm · Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2007 6:47 am Post subject:

The author is saying that the cuts in budget will work because the New Deal also worked. So he is implying that there is an analogy between the new law and the New Deal. Isn't it?

magical cook · Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2007 8:35 am Post subject:

Yeah, when I read it again, it makes sense. when I first read this, I thought the new deal indicates the law but it actually different sentence using analogical style...

bob.njue · Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 11:40 pm Post subject:

well according to your question i honestly would have gone for option (c) seems more logical to me but then again i dont know the answer either
gud one though