Here's a better explanation:
Do not contemplate over the tern "SCOPE SHIFT", our job here is to find an answer and not to understand various terms.
Now the explanation:
Argument is the city council members will CERTAINLY pass the plan because it benefits those people from whom city council members receive campaign contributions.
Now we have to weaken this argument,
A- incorrect, most of campaign contributions are still received from real estate developers
B- irrelevant
C- incorrect
D- CORRECT, because it says that members of council OFTEN vote against interests the campaign contributors, so we CANNOT say that members will vote CERTAINLY vote for campaign contributors
E- irrelevant
BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course
Redeem
Featured Course
Target Test Prep GMAT OnDemand
Scott Woodbury-Stewart’s private virtual classroom — 400 hours of master-class video lessons for the GMAT Focus Edition.
- 715+ score guarantee — highest in the industry (99th percentile)
- 52 chapters · 1,500+ lessons · 4,000+ practice questions
- 400 hours of video · 1,500+ instructor-led HD smartboard lessons
- 300,000+ students accepted to Harvard, Stanford, Wharton, Booth & Sloan & more
- 24/7 live support + weekly Zoom office hours with GMAT instructors
- TTP AI Assist — 24/7 AI-powered virtual tutor for instant help
- 1,200+ flashcards + AI-powered study assistant & daily calendar
- OnDemand, LiveTeach & GMAT Bootcamp formats available
- Also: GRE, SAT Math & Executive Assessment courses
- MBA Admissions Consulting now available
- 🏆 2025 EdTech Breakthrough Award: Test Prep Solution Provider of the Year
- 200,000+ students served
- 5-day free trial — $0 to start, no auto-billing, cancel anytime
★★★★★
5.0
(559 reviews)
130-pt guarantee
$0 to start
then $127/mo
City Council
-
vikram4689
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 1325
- Thanked: 105 times
-
sandeep800
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 126
IMO D
a) most of the contributions are still received from real estate people
b)irrelevant
c)but still many people from real estate can participate and gain
d) weakens
e) irrelevant
a) most of the contributions are still received from real estate people
b)irrelevant
c)but still many people from real estate can participate and gain
d) weakens
e) irrelevant
If my post helped you- let me know by pushing the thanks button 
Contact me about long distance tutoring!
[email protected]
Cans!!
Contact me about long distance tutoring!
[email protected]
Cans!!
^ This is the conclusion.The city council will certainly vote to approve the new downtown redevelopment plan
This is an argument in favor of the conclusion. We are trying to weaken this, as evidenced by: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.
A is incorrect because it simply states that the members of the council receive sizable contributions from environmental groups. This doesn't weaken the argument--that the council will vote one way because of the contributions of one group--it merely introduces another group and its contributions. Plus, it's possible for an environmentalist group to give a decent amount of money that is still less than what the development firms give.Which of the following statements, if true, would most weaken the argument above?
D is correct, because it is weakening the argument. The argument is that the council will vote one way, BECAUSE IT GETS ITS MONEY FROM CERTAIN PEOPLE. D says the council doesn't care where it gets its money, and that it often votes against the people it gets money from. So yeah, argument = shot down.
-
GMATGuruNY
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 15539
- Location: New York, NY
- Thanked: 13060 times
- GMAT Score:790
Learn to recognize the common flaws.bleacherseat wrote: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.
This argument exhibits a language shift.
The premise is about campaign contributions.
The conclusion is about voting for the redevelopment plan.
This is a language shift: the premise is about campaign contributions, the conclusion is about voting.
The argument assumes that these two ideas are connected: that campaign contributions determine how the committee votes.
The correct answer choice will break the link between these two ideas: it will show that campaign contributions DO NOT determine how the committee votes.
Answer choice D does just what we need: The members of the city council have often voted in ways that are opposed to the interests of their campaign contributors.
The correct answer is D.
For those who chose answer choice A:
Beware the word several. How many is several? The argument states that most of the contributions come from real estate development firms. If a few members receive money from environmental lobbying groups, the argument is not affected: most of the contributions would still be coming from the real estate firms.
Private tutor exclusively for the GMAT and GRE, with over 20 years of experience.
Followed here and elsewhere by over 1900 test-takers.
I have worked with students based in the US, Australia, Taiwan, China, Tajikistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia -- a long list of countries.
My students have been admitted to HBS, CBS, Tuck, Yale, Stern, Fuqua -- a long list of top programs.
As a tutor, I don't simply teach you how I would approach problems.
I unlock the best way for YOU to solve problems.
For more information, please email me (Mitch Hunt) at [email protected].
Student Review #1
Student Review #2
Student Review #3
Followed here and elsewhere by over 1900 test-takers.
I have worked with students based in the US, Australia, Taiwan, China, Tajikistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia -- a long list of countries.
My students have been admitted to HBS, CBS, Tuck, Yale, Stern, Fuqua -- a long list of top programs.
As a tutor, I don't simply teach you how I would approach problems.
I unlock the best way for YOU to solve problems.
For more information, please email me (Mitch Hunt) at [email protected].
Student Review #1
Student Review #2
Student Review #3
