Advertisement: Each of the Economic Merit Prize winners from the past 25 years is covered by the Acme retirement plan. Since the winners of the nation’s most prestigious award for economists have thus clearly recognized that the Acme plan offers them a financially secure future, it is probably a good plan for anyone with retirement needs similar to theirs.
The advertisement’s argumentation is most vulnerable to criticism on which one of the following grounds?
(A) It ignores the possibility that the majority of Economic Merit Prize winners from previous years used a retirement plan other than the Acme plan.
(B) It fails to address adequately the possibility that any of several retirement plans would be good enough for, and offer a financially secure future to, Economic Merit Prize winners.
(C) It appeals to the fact that supposed experts have endorsed the argument’s main conclusion, rather than appealing to direct evidence for that conclusion.
(D) It takes for granted that some winners of the Economic Merit Prize have deliberately selected the Acme retirement plan, rather than having had it chosen for them by their employers.
(E) It presumes, without providing justification, that each of the Economic Merit Prize winners has retirement plan needs that are identical to the advertisement’s intended audience’s retirement plan needs.
5-Day Free Trial
5-day free, full-access trial TTP
Available with Beat the GMAT members only code
MORE DETAILS
Economic Merit Prize
-
Domnu
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 385
- Joined: Sun May 24, 2009 3:55 pm
- Thanked: 11 times
- GMAT Score:740
Same here... between C and E, I choose E. It says that "Since the winners ... have ... recognized that the Acme plan offers them a financially secure future, it is probably a good plan for anyone with retirement needs similar to theirs."
The argument hinges that the winners are like anybody else, and so that the requirements for the winners are like that of anybody else, which E states.
I don't think C is as strong.
The argument hinges that the winners are like anybody else, and so that the requirements for the winners are like that of anybody else, which E states.
I don't think C is as strong.
Have you wondered how you could have found such a treasure? -T
the ad says it is probably a good plan for anyone with retirement needs similar to theirsDomnu wrote:Same here... between C and E, I choose E. It says that "Since the winners ... have ... recognized that the Acme plan offers them a financially secure future, it is probably a good plan for anyone with retirement needs similar to theirs."
The argument hinges that the winners are like anybody else, and so that the requirements for the winners are like that of anybody else, which E states.
I don't think C is as strong.
How on earth do you go from this to each of the Economic Merit Prize winners has retirement plan needs that are identical to the advertisement’s intended audience’s retirement plan needs??? It seems to me a pretty tough connection to make...plus, even if the ad claimed/implied something similar, I don't see how this could be a vulnerability of the argument
C could probably be accepted as a contender but E is way off, IMO
-
Domnu
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 385
- Joined: Sun May 24, 2009 3:55 pm
- Thanked: 11 times
- GMAT Score:740
Right, but that was the conclusion... how can someone recommend a plan that is good for them to everyone else? It's because the ideas in their plan apply to everyone else. Try using the negation tactic... if this weren't true, it would affect the conclusion the most to the point of invalidation. Is this right?avenus wrote:the ad says it is probably a good plan for anyone with retirement needs similar to theirsDomnu wrote:Same here... between C and E, I choose E. It says that "Since the winners ... have ... recognized that the Acme plan offers them a financially secure future, it is probably a good plan for anyone with retirement needs similar to theirs."
The argument hinges that the winners are like anybody else, and so that the requirements for the winners are like that of anybody else, which E states.
I don't think C is as strong.
How on earth do you go from this to each of the Economic Merit Prize winners has retirement plan needs that are identical to the advertisement’s intended audience’s retirement plan needs??? It seems to me a pretty tough connection to make...plus, even if the ad claimed/implied something similar, I don't see how this could be a vulnerability of the argument
C could probably be accepted as a contender but E is way off, IMO
Have you wondered how you could have found such a treasure? -T
nope... I believe you're mixing up concepts. negating does not really apply here, you're not looking for an assumption. To start with, E states that the ad presumes... that each of the Economic Merit Prize winners has retirement plan needs that are identical to the advertisement’s intended audience’s retirement plan needsDomnu wrote: Right, but that was the conclusion... how can someone recommend a plan that is good for them to everyone else? It's because the ideas in their plan apply to everyone else. Try using the negation tactic... if this weren't true, it would affect the conclusion the most to the point of invalidation. Is this right?
So how would you justify that presumption? Where do you see it? Where does the ad say that? Once you show this (you can't), we could think about moving on and checking whether that presumption actually damages the argument. Not before... :!:
-
shalinisingh
- Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
- Posts: 17
- Joined: Tue May 26, 2009 11:43 pm
- Location: India
what about D
(a) doesnot matter
(b) economic merit prize winners are not weighing the option
(c) not enough reason for criticism
(e) It says for those who have similar needs
D is correct. employers' reasons for choosing a plan may differ.
please tell the OA now.
(a) doesnot matter
(b) economic merit prize winners are not weighing the option
(c) not enough reason for criticism
(e) It says for those who have similar needs
D is correct. employers' reasons for choosing a plan may differ.
please tell the OA now.
-
mehravikas
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 1161
- Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 2:52 am
- Location: Sydney
- Thanked: 23 times
- Followed by:1 members
I was going for C but learning that D is the correct one, please, it makes no sense. I thought D was totally out of scope with all the employer stuff in it. I am sure this is a mistake as I have already encountered number of GMAT questions which made no sense and were clearly typos.
No mistake at all... the fact you've come across wrong answers in the past gives you no grounds for arguing an answer is wrong just because you don't agree with it. Think twice before saying I am sure this is a mistake. At least elaborate; if you are so sure, go ahead and provide a sound explanation to support your claim.Musicolo wrote:I was going for C but learning that D is the correct one, please, it makes no sense. I thought D was totally out of scope with all the employer stuff in it. I am sure this is a mistake as I have already encountered number of GMAT questions which made no sense and were clearly typos.
Answer C says It appeals to the fact that supposed experts have endorsed the argument’s main conclusion, rather than appealing to direct evidence for that conclusion First of all, the stimulus does NOT say that those people have endorsed the argument (read carefully). Secondly, even if it did, it's not immediately clear that there's something wrong with citing the opinion of an expert to back up the quality of a product.
It is a tricky question...
.
