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

Redeem

CR - Method of Argument

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1665
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 7:04 pm
Thanked: 165 times
Followed by:70 members

CR - Method of Argument

by karthikpandian19 » Sat Jun 30, 2012 3:29 am
Brian: The court decision requiring certain manufacturing industries in the United States to pay billions in fines for polluting the air will cause these industries to relocate to other countries. As a result, the United States' tax revenue from these industries, which amounts to $500 million, will be lost, as will the jobs that these industries provided. Therefore, these fines will harm the global economy.

Pete: The $500 million in tax revenues lost by the United States will go to other countries; jobs and tax revenues will be gained as well as lost.

Pete responds to Brian by _______.


(A) demonstrating that Brian's conclusion is based on evidence that is not relevant to the issue at hand

(B) challenging the plausibility of the evidence that serves as the basis for Brian's argument

(C) implying that Brian's conclusion neglects to consider a mitigating consequence

(D) reinforcing Brian's conclusion by supplying a complementary interpretation of the evidence Brian cites

(E) agreeing with the main conclusion of Brian's argument but construing that conclusion as grounds for optimism rather than for pessimism
Regards,
Karthik
The source of the questions that i post from JUNE 2013 is from KNEWTON

---If you find my post useful, click "Thank" :) :)---
---Never stop until cracking GMAT---
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 342
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 8:50 am
Thanked: 214 times
Followed by:19 members
GMAT Score:740

by Birottam Dutta » Sat Jun 30, 2012 4:29 am
Brian: The court decision requiring certain manufacturing industries in the United States to pay billions in fines for polluting the air will cause these industries to relocate to other countries. As a result, the United States' tax revenue from these industries, which amounts to $500 million, will be lost, as will the jobs that these industries provided. Therefore, these fines will harm the global economy.

Pete: The $500 million in tax revenues lost by the United States will go to other countries; jobs and tax revenues will be gained as well as lost.

Pete responds to Brian by _______.


(A) demonstrating that Brian's conclusion is based on evidence that is not relevant to the issue at hand --- Incorrect, Pete actually agrees with Brian

(B) challenging the plausibility of the evidence that serves as the basis for Brian's argument --Incorrect, Pete does not challenge Brain

(C) implying that Brian's conclusion neglects to consider a mitigating consequence ---Incorrect, it is not a mitigating consequence.

(D) reinforcing Brian's conclusion by supplying a complementary interpretation of the evidence Brian cites --- Incorrect, Pete does not supply any complementary interpretation

(E) agreeing with the main conclusion of Brian's argument but construing that conclusion as grounds for optimism rather than for pessimism--- Correct, Pete uses the same conclusion as grounds for optimism and not pessimism.
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 307
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2012 9:45 pm
Thanked: 12 times
GMAT Score:700

by Gaurav 2013-fall » Sun Jul 01, 2012 8:52 am
Birottam Dutta wrote:Brian: The court decision requiring certain manufacturing industries in the United States to pay billions in fines for polluting the air will cause these industries to relocate to other countries. As a result, the United States' tax revenue from these industries, which amounts to $500 million, will be lost, as will the jobs that these industries provided. Therefore, these fines will harm the global economy.

Pete: The $500 million in tax revenues lost by the United States will go to other countries; jobs and tax revenues will be gained as well as lost.

Pete responds to Brian by _______.


(A) demonstrating that Brian's conclusion is based on evidence that is not relevant to the issue at hand --- Incorrect, Pete actually agrees with Brian

(B) challenging the plausibility of the evidence that serves as the basis for Brian's argument --Incorrect, Pete does not challenge Brain

(C) implying that Brian's conclusion neglects to consider a mitigating consequence ---Incorrect, it is not a mitigating consequence.

(D) reinforcing Brian's conclusion by supplying a complementary interpretation of the evidence Brian cites --- Incorrect, Pete does not supply any complementary interpretation

(E) agreeing with the main conclusion of Brian's argument but construing that conclusion as grounds for optimism rather than for pessimism--- Correct, Pete uses the same conclusion as grounds for optimism and not pessimism.


IMO C

Reason: Pete does not agree with Brian and says jobs/revenune lost in this country will be gained somewhere else. So, its kind of mitigating the loss.

BTW whats the OA for this?
Let me tell you something you already know. The world ain't all sunshine and rainbows. It is a very mean and nasty place and it will beat you to your knees and keep you there permanently if you let it. You, me, or nobody is gonna hit as hard as life. But it ain't how hard you hit; it's about how hard you can get hit, and keep moving forward. How much you can take, and keep moving forward. That's how winning is done. Now, if you know what you're worth, then go out and get what you're worth. But you gotta be willing to take the hit, and not pointing fingers saying you ain't where you are because of him, or her, or anybody. Cowards do that and that ain't you. You're better than that! (Rocky VI)
Top
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 24
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2012 9:03 am
Thanked: 1 times

by gmat2805 » Sun Jul 01, 2012 8:58 am
Answer should be E. The argument's scope is shifted to the world from US alone. The negative impact on US economy is overcome by a positive approach to the issue at hand. C should not be the answer its not mitigating (reducing) the consequence of this decision. It just provides an alternative positive view.
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1665
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 7:04 pm
Thanked: 165 times
Followed by:70 members

by karthikpandian19 » Sun Jul 01, 2012 8:22 pm
OA is C

OE is

Brian argues that the court-imposed fines will result in a loss of jobs and tax revenue in the U.S., hurting the global economy. Pete points out that while the United States may suffer, other countries will gain because the industries that leave the U.S. as a result of the fines will go elsewhere.

Pete uses the same evidence, that revenue will be lost by the U.S. as a result of the fines, but comes to a different conclusion. While Brian focuses on the loss to one country, Pete looks at the gains to other countries. By suggesting a consequence that Brian did not mention, he places the outcome in a more positive light.

Choice A suggests that Pete is demonstrating that Brian's conclusion relies on irrelevant evidence. Pete accepts the relevance of Brian's evidence and uses it himself when he refers to the $500 million in tax revenues lost by the United States.

Choice B suggests that Pete is challenging the plausibility of the evidence on which Brian's argument is based. Pete does not challenge Brian's evidence; he uses the same evidence as the basis of his own argument.

Choice C suggests that Pete is suggesting that Brian's argument does not take into account a mitigating consequence. This statement properly identifies the strategy Pete employs in his counterargument. Pete points out that Brian did not consider that, in this case, losses for one country mean gains for others, and the global economy is thus not necessarily harmed. Choice C is correct.

Choice D suggests that Pete is reinforcing Brian's conclusion by offering a complementary interpretation of his evidence. Pete rejects rather than reinforces Brian's conclusion; while he notes the losses in jobs and revenues that will harm the global economy, he points out that jobs and revenue will be gained as well as lost.

Choice E suggests that Pete is agreeing with Brian's main conclusion but viewing the conclusion as grounds for optimism rather than pessimism. Pete does not agree with Brian that the fines will harm the global economy; he argues instead that gains in other countries will compensate for the losses in the United States.

Choice C is correct.
karthikpandian19 wrote:Brian: The court decision requiring certain manufacturing industries in the United States to pay billions in fines for polluting the air will cause these industries to relocate to other countries. As a result, the United States' tax revenue from these industries, which amounts to $500 million, will be lost, as will the jobs that these industries provided. Therefore, these fines will harm the global economy.

Pete: The $500 million in tax revenues lost by the United States will go to other countries; jobs and tax revenues will be gained as well as lost.

Pete responds to Brian by _______.


(A) demonstrating that Brian's conclusion is based on evidence that is not relevant to the issue at hand

(B) challenging the plausibility of the evidence that serves as the basis for Brian's argument

(C) implying that Brian's conclusion neglects to consider a mitigating consequence

(D) reinforcing Brian's conclusion by supplying a complementary interpretation of the evidence Brian cites

(E) agreeing with the main conclusion of Brian's argument but construing that conclusion as grounds for optimism rather than for pessimism
Regards,
Karthik
The source of the questions that i post from JUNE 2013 is from KNEWTON

---If you find my post useful, click "Thank" :) :)---
---Never stop until cracking GMAT---
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1