Critical Reasoning

A recent report on an environmental improvement program was criticized for focusing solely on pragmatic solutions to the large number of significant problems that plague the program instead of seriously trying to produce a coherent vision for the future of the program. In response the report's authors granted that the critics had raised a valid point but explained that, to do anything at all, the program needed continued government funding, and that to get such funding the program first needed to regain a reputation for competence.

Which one of the following, if true, would best serve the critics of the report in their attempt to undermine the position taken by the report's authors?

(A) The government does not actually provide a full l00 percent of the program's funding.
(B) The program will continue to have numerous serious problems precisely because it lacks a coherent vision for its future.
(C) The program had a coherent vision at its inception, but that vision has proved impossible to sustain.
(D) The government has threatened to cut off funding for the program but has not acted yet on this threat.
(E) The program has acquired a worse reputation for incompetence than it deserves.

[spoiler]LSAT; OA B; Pls explain how to drop A[/spoiler]

Critics: This report only focuses on practical solutions to the problem but does not provide a plan for the future.
Authors: True, but unless we regain a reputation for competence the government won't fund us and we won't be able to do anything.

Which of the following would help the critics to respond to the authors?

A. The government does not provide 100% of the funding. So what? Perhaps it provides more than 50% and thus the program still heavily depends on govt. contribution. This won't attack the authors' position.

B. This directly attacks the authors' position and reiterates the critics' original position. This suggests that the fact that the report lacks a coherent vision is causing numerous serious problems for the program, and would thus undermine it. This serves as a good reason for the authors to include a vision if they believe that a good reputation is needed.

C. Original vision impossible to sustain - this actually weakens to suggestion of a vision.

D. Has not yet acted on the threat - so what, it is still a valid threat and the authors are justified in being wary.

E. It doesn't deserve the bad reputation - but that doesn't change the fact that it needs to regain the reputation to ensure government funding. Won't help the critics' argument.

Pick B.

Premises:
A recent report on an environmental improvement program was criticized for focusing solely on pragmatic solutions to the large number of significant problems that plague the program
instead of seriously trying to produce a coherent vision for the future of the program.
In response the report's authors granted that the critics had raised a valid point but explained that, to do anything at all, the program needed continued government funding, and that to get such funding the program first needed to regain a reputation for competence.

We need to find a statement that would best serve the critics of the report in their attempt to undermine the position taken by the report's authors

(A) The government does not actually provide a full l00 percent of the program's funding.

Report's authors do not mention about full 100 percent funding. They just mentioned about continued funding. If the option said that government does not provide continued funding. Then it would have been close. Hence Irrelevant.

(B) The program will continue to have numerous serious problems precisely because it lacks a coherent vision for its future.

This option attacks the report's authors work. It points its focus directly on the program's vision for its future. looks perfect.

(C) The program had a coherent vision at its inception, but that vision has proved impossible to sustain.
According to the passage, Right from the inception, there was no coherent vision for the program. Hence ruled out.

(D) The government has threatened to cut off funding for the program but has not acted yet on this threat.

This is Out of scope for the argument. Highly irrelevant because there is no such information present in the argument.

(E) The program has acquired a worse reputation for incompetence than it deserves.

This is not an attacking statement from the critc's perspective. It is just additional information which might be true/false.

pick B.

Hope this helps!!

Let me know if you have any queries.

[spoiler]A isn't correct: Note that the environmental program described doesn't ask for full funding, but only asks for continued funding. Whether or not the government provides 100 percent of the funding is irrelevant.[/spoiler]

All three of us hitting submit at almost the same time Cheers!!

Thanks to all of you - Domnu, kvcpk, albatross86

pnk wrote:Thanks to all of you - Domnu, kvcpk, albatross86

shhhhhhh I missed it!!

Probably this way of strengthening comes under "circular reasoning".. Generally Circular reasoning is a fallacy. But when u want to strengthen ur claim , we some times do "circular reasoning"

ex:
A satisfied citizen says: "Richardson is the most successful mayor the town has ever had because he's the best mayor of our history."

The second part of this sentence offers no evidence - it simply repeats the claim that was already presented. Don't be fooled into believing that using the word "because" in an argument automatically provides a valid reason. Be sure to provide clear evidence to support your claims, not a version of the premise (the initial statement in an argument).

Thanks gmatmachoman.

You haven't missed..you are making a very valid point.

Critics says report trying to solve existing problems rather than develop longer term plans. Authors says 'they want to develop longer term plans, but they require funds to do so and the funds will be available when they solve existing problems'.

Could you explain how this argument is circular...I think I am missing sth. It would be great, if you could also explain how to leverage the circular reasong while answering - sort of key take aways