Defense budget!!

Expert replies

gmat_perfect: Legendary Member; Posts: 1083; Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 9:38 pmFollowed by: 14 members; Thanked: 127 times

by gmat_perfect » Sat Jun 26, 2010 11:58 am

The public in the United States has in the past been conditioned to support a substantial defense budget by the threat of confrontation with the Eastern bloc. Now that that threat is dissolving, along with the Eastern bloc itself, it is doubtful whether the public can be persuaded to support an adequate defense budget.

Which one of the following indicates a weakness in the position expressed above?

(A) It presupposes that public opinion can be manipulated indefinitely, without the public's becoming aware of that manipulation.
(B) It refers to past and present events that do not have a causal connection with public support of the budget.
(C) It assumes as fact what it seeks to establish by reasoning.
(D) It fails to give any reason for the judgment it reaches.
(E) It hinges on the term "adequate," the precise meaning of which requires reevaluation in the new context.

OA: E

Experts, please explain every option.

Thanks.

Source: Beat The GMAT — Critical Reasoning | Sat Jun 26, 2010 11:58 am

albatross86: Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts; Posts: 392; Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 2:42 amFollowed by: 10 members; Location: Bangalore, India; Thanked: 116 times; GMAT Score:770

by albatross86 » Sat Jun 26, 2010 12:36 pm

I'm no expert, but here's my two cents.

Threat of confrontation with EB --> used to condition public to support SUBSTANTIAL defense budget.
Threat dissolving, along with EB --> Doubtful whether public can be persuaded to support ADEQUATE budget.

What is the FLAW?

A. Whether or not the public is aware of being manipulated is not relevant. We cannot assume that the public would be affected by the knowledge of being manipulated or not. The argument only speaks of the apparent cause-effect between thread of confrontation with EB and their predisposition to support a big budget. IRRELEVANT.

B. There is actually a causal connection here, as you can see in my summary of the argument above. Atleast, there was such a connection in the past. Also, is it really referring to past or present events, or simply a condition that has been a certain way UPTO the present, and makes a prediction for the future?

C. The only fact stated explicitly is the EB threat dissolving. The reasoning is that "it is DOUBTFUL" which means the author does not regard his claim as absolutely true, or as an assumed fact but simply as a prediction.

D. A reason is clearly stated. The threat has historically caused public to support defense, now that it is dissolving, it is a reason to doubt that the pubic will continue to support it.

E. EXACTLY. If you notice, the public used to support a SUBSTANTIAL budget during the threat. This means that they supported a budget that was MORE THAN ADEQUATE. Thus when this threat is no longer present, the only logical conclusion is that "It is doubtful that the public can be persuaded to support a substantial '/ more than adequate buget"
It is actually quite possible that the public will now support an adequate budget instead of a more than adequate one and there is not reason to doubt that specifically. Thus we need to reevaluate, in context, the exact definitions of adequate in relation to substantial to make sure that the argument is not making an unreasonable claim.

Pick E.

paddle_sweep: Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts; Posts: 379; Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 12:53 am; Location: Chennai,India; Thanked: 3 times

by paddle_sweep » Sat Jun 26, 2010 8:17 pm

What type of question is this? Do we need to treat this as 'Evaluate the argument'?

Cheers

albatross86: Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts; Posts: 392; Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 2:42 amFollowed by: 10 members; Location: Bangalore, India; Thanked: 116 times; GMAT Score:770

by albatross86 » Sat Jun 26, 2010 10:08 pm

paddle_sweep wrote:What type of question is this? Do we need to treat this as 'Evaluate the argument'?

Cheers

This is a "Spot the FLAW in the argument" question.

GMAT Course Reviews

563 reviews

1168 reviews

431 reviews

359 reviews

147 reviews

5/5

5 Star (563 Reviews)

"Target Test Prep is the closest to the official version of the GMAT exam, about 99% accuracy in terms of the quality and quantity of information. The course has excellently created singular sets of focused lessons and tests for every possible topic that one could come across in the official GMAT exam."

"The TTP course maximizes the efficiency of the time you spend studying. It will take time and effort but I could almost guarantee that if you complete the course exactly as it is laid out you will get an amazing score. They also have a very responsive team willing to help with any questions you might have."

"TTP has two things that I think no other test prep company offers: A teaching approach that reinforces understanding and an attitude that will give you the mental preparedness needed to succeed on the test. TTP gives you a deep understanding of the concept you need to know while teaching you how to think."

Write a Review