Critical Reasoning

The city council will certainly vote to approve the new downtown redevelopment plan, despite the objections of environmentalists. After all, most of the campaign contributions received by members of the city council come from real estate development firms, which stand to benefit from the plan.

Which of the following statements, if true, would most weaken the argument above?

(A) Several members of the city council receive sizable campaign contributions from environmental lobbying groups.
(B) Members of the city council are required to report the size and source of each campaign contribution they receive.
(C) Not every real estate development firm in the city will be able to participate in, and profit from, the new downtown redevelopment plan.
(D) The members of the city council have often voted in ways that are opposed to the interests of their campaign contributors.
(E) Some environmentalists have stated that the new downtown redevelopment plan might be environmentally sound if certain minor modifications are made.

IMO A

IMO D: Scope shift example

(A) Might be interesting but the paragraph still says that most of the campaign contributions came from real estate people.
(B) Unrelated.

(C) Most real estate firms that gave money will benefit from the decision. --> Does not matter that some will not benefit (especially as we dont know whether they gave money or not).

(D) Members voting against the interest groups? Sounds interesting in this argument. Hold on to it.

(E) Unrelated.

--> IMO D.

IMO: A

It states that since most of the campaign contributions come from real estate development firms, the new downtown redevelopment plan will approve-- It shows a strong opinion that the plan will approve.

However, if the city council members also receive campaign contribution from environmental lobbying groups, it is not so sure they will approve the plan (they wouldn't CERTAINLY vote-)

OA is D.

what the heck is scope shift ?

By saying "scope shift" I meant the way in which conclusion is established..

1st statement (conclusion)--Approval despite environmentalist objections
2nd statement (evidence)-- contribution from real estate

According to me, although most disagree, 2nd statement has shifted the scope

1st and 2nd statemnt are in different directions...

So the choice would be correct which would point out the scope shift..
D just does that....D attacks the evience, the 2nd statemnt

Jatinder wrote:By saying "scope shift" I meant the way in which conclusion is established..

1st statement (conclusion)--Approval despite environmentalist objections
2nd statement (evidence)-- contribution from real estate

According to me, although most disagree, 2nd statement has shifted the scope

1st and 2nd statemnt are in different directions...

So the choice would be correct which would point out the scope shift..
D just does that....D attacks the evience, the 2nd statemnt

Seriously I cannot see different directions or 2nd stmt has shifted scope.
May be I am missing something ..........

pls tell me the source of scope shift..frm where u have read this.

imo D

as pointed in the previous posts, the first sentence is the conclusion. When weakening the argument look for the answer choice closely related to the conclusion. Only 'D' talks about the conclusion, 'A' is related to the premise/evidence/the second sentence.

gmat009 wrote:

Jatinder wrote:By saying "scope shift" I meant the way in which conclusion is established..

1st statement (conclusion)--Approval despite environmentalist objections
2nd statement (evidence)-- contribution from real estate

According to me, although most disagree, 2nd statement has shifted the scope

1st and 2nd statemnt are in different directions...

So the choice would be correct which would point out the scope shift..
D just does that....D attacks the evience, the 2nd statemnt

Seriously I cannot see different directions or 2nd stmt has shifted scope.
May be I am missing something ..........

May be, i am not able to justify that.
Let me illustrate a bit furthur.
After reading 1st staement, I was anticipating to read more about environmentalist or about a plan. but the 2nd statement, according to me, have illustrated something new: campaign contributions

If still, it does not make sense, then probably its more of my feeling rather than logical justification.

its illustrated in Kaplan800 book

simply put, the argument makes the assumption that the committee will vote in favor of the interests that make large contributions. choice D says that they actually DO NOT tend to vote in favor of their funding, which puts holes in the argument... so D imo.

Maybe another person's view might help.

I don't believe there's a scope shift here. A scope shift is when one group is substituted for another. For example, the stimulus is speaking about three groups: the city council, real estate firms, and environmentalists. Lets say an answer choice shifted from the city council to the federal government, this would be a classic scope shift.

Tip: For weaken or strengthen Qs focus on the conclusion. Also, the strongest answer choice is usually correct.

(A) Several members of the city council receive sizable campaign contributions from environmental lobbying groups.
Eliminate: So what? This is still consistent with the information given above.

(B) Members of the city council are required to report the size and source of each campaign contribution they receive.
Eliminate: Fact statement. This has no bearing on the argument.

(C) Not every real estate development firm in the city will be able to participate in, and profit from, the new downtown redevelopment plan.
Eliminate: So what? This is also consistent with the information given above. You can still have "most" of the real estate firms participating or even have 1 real estate firm that donates more than every other organization.

(D) The members of the city council have often voted in ways that are opposed to the interests of their campaign contributors.
My choice. One only needs to weaken the statement whether it is 0.001% or 99%. This answer choice would show that the contributions don't have any bearing on their decisions. I believe the word "often" is roughly equivalent to "more than half/most".

(E) Some environmentalists have stated that the new downtown redevelopment plan might be environmentally sound if certain minor modifications are made.
Eliminate: Fact statement. If anything, this may even strengthen the argument.

pls tell me the source of scope shift.

It should be D

A is wrong as even though the environmentalist contributed but it cannot be ruled out that the decision will not be affected by contribution of real estate firms