Concerned citizen: The mayor, an outspoken critic of the proposed restoration of city hall, is right when he notes that the building is outdated, but that the restoration would be expensive at a time when the budget is already tight. We cannot afford such a luxury item in this time of financial restraint, he says. However, I respectfully disagree. The building provides the last remaining link to the days of the city's founding, and preserving a sense of municipal history is crucial to maintaining respect for our city government and its authority. So to the question,"Can we really afford to?" I can only respond, "Can we afford not to?"
Which one of the following most accurately characterizes a flaw in the concerned citizen's argument?
a. the argument is solely an emotional appeal to history
b. the argument ambiguously uses the word "afford"
c. the argument inappropriately appeals to the authority of the mayor
d. the argument incorrectly presumes that the restoration would be expensive
e. the argument inappropriately relies on the emotional connotations of words such as "outdated" and "luxury"
BUILDING RESTORATION (PLS EXPLAIN WHY A IS WRONG IN DETAIL)
This topic has expert replies
- harsh.champ
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 1132
- Joined: Mon Jul 20, 2009 3:38 am
- Location: India
- Thanked: 64 times
- Followed by:6 members
- GMAT Score:760
IMO E is the answer.max37274 wrote:Concerned citizen: The mayor, an outspoken critic of the proposed restoration of city hall, is right when he notes that the building is outdated, but that the restoration would be expensive at a time when the budget is already tight. We cannot afford such a luxury item in this time of financial restraint, he says. However, I respectfully disagree. The building provides the last remaining link to the days of the city's founding, and preserving a sense of municipal history is crucial to maintaining respect for our city government and its authority. So to the question,"Can we really afford to?" I can only respond, "Can we afford not to?"
Which one of the following most accurately characterizes a flaw in the concerned citizen's argument?
a. the argument is solely an emotional appeal to history
b. the argument ambiguously uses the word "afford"
c. the argument inappropriately appeals to the authority of the mayor
d. the argument incorrectly presumes that the restoration would be expensive
e. the argument inappropriately relies on the emotional connotations of words such as "outdated" and "luxury"
Surely,in A "emotional approach to history" is written but E most accurately characterizes it.
Both A and E are right but E is more accurate than A.
What's the OA??
It takes time and effort to explain, so if my comment helped you please press Thanks button
Just because something is hard doesn't mean you shouldn't try,it means you should just try harder.
"Keep Walking" - Johnny Walker
Just because something is hard doesn't mean you shouldn't try,it means you should just try harder.
"Keep Walking" - Johnny Walker
- harsh.champ
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 1132
- Joined: Mon Jul 20, 2009 3:38 am
- Location: India
- Thanked: 64 times
- Followed by:6 members
- GMAT Score:760
Well in that case,even I am confused How can use of "afford" change the answer??max37274 wrote:oa is B
IMO E should be the answer even now.
What is the source of this question??
Does not it contain the solution??
I am looking forward to the solution.
It takes time and effort to explain, so if my comment helped you please press Thanks button
Just because something is hard doesn't mean you shouldn't try,it means you should just try harder.
"Keep Walking" - Johnny Walker
Just because something is hard doesn't mean you shouldn't try,it means you should just try harder.
"Keep Walking" - Johnny Walker
- firdaus117
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 102
- Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2010 5:38 am
- Location: IIM Ahmedabad
- Thanked: 10 times
Well I go for E which correctly exposes the flaw in the citizen's argument.He contradicts Mayor's conclusion of high expediture without giving out a financial assessment to counter latter's claim.He ,on the other hand,relies on the emotional connotations of words.
Between A & E,the latter one is more detailed and spot on.
Between A & E,the latter one is more detailed and spot on.
-
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 2326
- Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 3:54 am
- Thanked: 173 times
- Followed by:2 members
- GMAT Score:710
Max, Let me try my best...( I am not sure though becox this kind of patterns NEVER appears in Real GMAT)max37274 wrote:Concerned citizen: The mayor, an outspoken critic of the proposed restoration of city hall, is right when he notes that the building is outdated, but that the restoration would be expensive at a time when the budget is already tight. We cannot afford such a luxury item in this time of financial restraint, he says.
However, I respectfully disagree. The building provides the last remaining link to the days of the city's founding, and preserving a sense of municipal history is crucial to maintaining respect for our city government and its authority. So to the question,"Can we really afford to?" I can only respond, "Can we afford not to?"
Which one of the following most accurately characterizes a flaw in the concerned citizen's argument?
a. the argument is solely an emotional appeal to history
b. the argument ambiguously uses the word "afford"
c. the argument inappropriately appeals to the authority of the mayor
d. the argument incorrectly presumes that the restoration would be expensive
e. the argument inappropriately relies on the emotional connotations of words such as "outdated" and "luxury"
For ur "happiness" I am lending my hand!!!
Here there are 2 characters : one is concerned citizen & the other is the author ( Marked as "I")
Now the question stems says a flaw in the concerned citizen's argument..
Since there is no conclusion in the argument and just they are claims made my 2 people, its natural we can see discrepancies/ ambiguity/ biasness in statements.
Here " affordability" is term used to create " conflict of thought" to generate " ambiguity".
CC (concerened citizen) says Mayor has to concentrate on " basic social activities rather than " restoration activities which is assumed to be " luxurious"
Author counters it as preserving a sense of municipal history is critical for Govt officials.
CC acknowledges " affordability" in terms of " financial capabilty( more of economic sense)...
Author speaks " affordabilty"in terms of " maintaining prestige/ old history sense"
SO B fits the bill.
Ur question ??
Why A is wrong???
A talks about emotional appeal ...Right??
But CC is more concerened about finiacial restraints/ commitments of mayor towards the state. No emotions is in play.Its pure economics.
E is certainly wrong becoz, while solving a flaw based question we need to identify /pick answers that relates to both sides of the speakers.
- komal
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 777
- Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 4:02 am
- Location: Mumbai, India
- Thanked: 117 times
- Followed by:47 members
max37274 wrote:Concerned citizen: The mayor, an outspoken critic of the proposed restoration of city hall, is right when he notes that the building is outdated, but that the restoration would be expensive at a time when the budget is already tight. We cannot afford such a luxury item in this time of financial restraint, he says. However, I respectfully disagree. The building provides the last remaining link to the days of the city's founding, and preserving a sense of municipal history is crucial to maintaining respect for our city government and its authority. So to the question,"Can we really afford to?" I can only respond, "Can we afford not to?"
Which one of the following most accurately characterizes a flaw in the concerned citizen's argument?
a. the argument is solely an emotional appeal to history
Incorrect : This is an attractive answer choice.... but the word 'solely' is way too extreme for my liking.
b. the argument ambiguously uses the word "afford"
Correct : The word 'afford' is open to two interpretations here. Mayor's interpretation of the word afford = finance & the citizen's interpretation of the word afford = preserving a sense of municipal history.
c. the argument inappropriately appeals to the authority of the mayor
Incorrect : Nothing in the passage suggests appeals to the authority of the mayor.
d. the argument incorrectly presumes that the restoration would be expensive
Incorrect : It is anything but presumption. Eliminated.
e. the argument inappropriately relies on the emotional connotations of words such as "outdated" and "luxury"
Incorrect : This statement does not correctly characterizes a flaw in the concerned citizen's argument