BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

Manhattan - weaken

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 462
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 1:08 pm
Thanked: 10 times
Followed by:4 members

Manhattan - weaken

by confuse mind » Wed May 23, 2012 8:55 pm
Wide dissemination of wireless networks in cities is a practical way to meet the needs of city households, schools and businesses. Rural communities have found that wireless networks are both more reliable and cheaper than land-based networks.

Which of the following would most likely be cited by a supporter of the argument?


Urban areas do not pose additional problems for the effective operation of wireless networks.
Wireless networks work far better where population density is low.
Iceland, a very rural country, successfully uses wireless networks.
The expenses of wireless transmission in areas with large buildings is much higher.
Poor neighborhoods have less access to cable internet than do educators or businesses.

OA - A. The explanation says that A is the answer based on the installation in urban areas is the conclusion derived on the basis of rural areas

Please explain me the conclusion in the sentence and the OA.

My answer was - C. C provides an example of successful installation in Rural areas and an example strengthens Please explain it is not correct?
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 3225
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 2:40 pm
Location: Toronto
Thanked: 1710 times
Followed by:614 members
GMAT Score:800

by Stuart@KaplanGMAT » Wed May 23, 2012 10:21 pm
confuse mind wrote:Wide dissemination of wireless networks in cities is a practical way to meet the needs of city households, schools and businesses. Rural communities have found that wireless networks are both more reliable and cheaper than land-based networks.

Which of the following would most likely be cited by a supporter of the argument?


A) Urban areas do not pose additional problems for the effective operation of wireless networks.
B) Wireless networks work far better where population density is low.
C) Iceland, a very rural country, successfully uses wireless networks.
D) The expenses of wireless transmission in areas with large buildings is much higher.
E) Poor neighborhoods have less access to cable internet than do educators or businesses.
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
Image

Stuart Kovinsky | Kaplan GMAT Faculty | Toronto

Kaplan Exclusive: The Official Test Day Experience | Ready to Take a Free Practice Test? | Kaplan/Beat the GMAT Member Discount
BTG100 for $100 off a full course
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 148
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2012 1:08 pm
Thanked: 8 times

by jimmyjimmy » Thu May 24, 2012 7:30 am
great explanation
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1