Explain

This topic has expert replies
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 159
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 8:41 pm
Thanked: 3 times

Explain

by ankit1383 » Thu Dec 04, 2008 6:23 pm
The recently negotiated North American Free Trade Agreement among Canada, Mexico, and the United States is misnamed, because it would not result in truly free trade. Adam Smith, the economist who first articulated the principles of free trade, held that any obstacle placed in the way of the free movement of goods, investment, or labor would defeat free trade. So since under the agreement workers would be restricted by national boundaries from seeking the best conditions they could find, the resulting obstruction of the flow of trade would, from a free-trade perspective, be harmful.

The argument proceeds by

(A) ruling out alternatives

(B) using a term in two different senses

(C) citing a nonrepresentative instance

(D) appealing to a relevant authority

(E) responding to a different issue from the one posed



Is Restriction on movment of labour can be regarded as non representatice instance
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 105
Joined: Sat May 17, 2008 8:12 pm
Thanked: 6 times

by gmataug08 » Thu Dec 04, 2008 8:27 pm
A or C.

A:
the arguement declares that the agreement is harmful as it is not strictly adhering with the specifications, and not giving space for any alternatives if any. But as no alternative was presented- it kind of questions this choice.

C:
I am not too sure on what is meant by 'nonrepresentative instance',
but guessing that , it meant not a regularly occuring instance, as restriction of trade related labour movement is not a common instance - (which the author is assuming for his conclusion ).

I would go with C.

Legendary Member
Posts: 1159
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2008 10:35 pm
Thanked: 56 times

by raunekk » Thu Dec 04, 2008 10:31 pm
The recently negotiated North American Free Trade Agreement among Canada, Mexico, and the United States is misnamed, because it would not result in truly free trade. Adam Smith, the economist who first articulated the principles of free trade, held that any obstacle placed in the way of the free movement of goods, investment, or labor would defeat free trade. So since under the agreement workers would be restricted by national boundaries from seeking the best conditions they could find, the resulting obstruction of the flow of trade would, from a free-trade perspective, be harmful.

A) ruling out alternatives -irrelevant

(B) using a term in two different senses - uses the same sense

(C) citing a nonrepresentative instance - all the citings are representative

(D) appealing to a relevant authority -correct

(E) responding to a different issue from the one posed - responds to the same issue.

imo:D

Legendary Member
Posts: 829
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 10:09 pm
Location: INDIA
Thanked: 84 times
Followed by:3 members

Re: Explain

by sudhir3127 » Thu Dec 04, 2008 10:54 pm
ankit1383 wrote:The recently negotiated North American Free Trade Agreement among Canada, Mexico, and the United States is misnamed, because it would not result in truly free trade. Adam Smith, the economist who first articulated the principles of free trade, held that any obstacle placed in the way of the free movement of goods, investment, or labor would defeat free trade. So since under the agreement workers would be restricted by national boundaries from seeking the best conditions they could find, the resulting obstruction of the flow of trade would, from a free-trade perspective, be harmful.

The argument proceeds by

(A) ruling out alternatives

(B) using a term in two different senses

(C) citing a nonrepresentative instance

(D) appealing to a relevant authority

(E) responding to a different issue from the one posed



Is Restriction on movment of labour can be regarded as non representatice instance
I go with D as well..

Legendary Member
Posts: 572
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2008 9:25 am
Thanked: 21 times

by reachac » Thu Dec 04, 2008 11:50 pm
I liked C the best. IMO C

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 145
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 7:18 am
Location: United Kingdom
Thanked: 5 times

by poonam1279 » Fri Dec 05, 2008 2:48 am
restricted by national boundaries from seeking the best conditions they could find This seems to be nonrepresentative instance. C for me

Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 25
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2008 10:08 pm

by casfguy » Fri Dec 05, 2008 5:16 pm
...because it would not result in truly free trade..

B for me.
Looks like Author is comparing Free trade Agreemet Vs. What he thinks Free trade Agreemen[/quote]

Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 18
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2008 9:35 am

by youcan » Fri Dec 05, 2008 7:29 pm
I feel C is correct . The original stance Free trade agreement but the instance quoted was not representing the original instance. Correct me if iam wrong.

OA please

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 159
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 8:41 pm
Thanked: 3 times

Hi

by ankit1383 » Sat Dec 06, 2008 1:35 am
OA....D.......

Legendary Member
Posts: 621
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 7:13 pm
Thanked: 33 times
Followed by:4 members

by vittalgmat » Sun Dec 07, 2008 2:06 am
yep D it is. It is a low hanging fruit.. solved in under 30 secs.
This answer jumped at me as soon as I read Adam Smith blah blah.. in the stimulus. "appeal to authority", "causal vs correlation", "circular reasoning" are some standard CR ploys used by GMAT/LSAT.

HT Helps.

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 300
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2014 7:58 am

by peter.p.81 » Wed May 11, 2016 3:31 am
Cannot decide between C and D. Can anyone brake down these two choices for me please