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

Redeem

CR Weaken the Conclusion Concept

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 46
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 8:54 am
Followed by:1 members

CR Weaken the Conclusion Concept

by CaptainM » Sun Jun 20, 2010 9:36 am
Hi Stacey

In reference to your reply :https://www.beatthegmat.com/mba/2010/01/ ... mment-3857 I apologize for not following the protocol.

The following question is a GMAT Prep Qs.

Can you please explain why 'C' in the following question is the right answer as it looks conceptually similar to option 'E' in the problem you discussed here:https://www.beatthegmat.com/mba/2010/01/ ... cr-problem

The recent decline in the employment rate was spurred by predictions of slow economic growth in the coming year. However, those predictions would not have affected the employment rate if it had not been for the lack of capital reserves of major industries. So if major industries increase their capital reserves, the employment rate will not decline in the future.

Which of the following, if true, casts the most doubt on the validity of the argument above?

A)Major industry foresaw the drop in employment.

B)Some major industries had appreciable capital reserves.

C)An increase in labor costs could adversely affect the employment rate.

D)The government could pass legislation mandating that major industries set aside a fixed amount as capital reserves every year.

E)The drop in the employment rate was more severe this year than last.

Thanks in advance.. :)
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
Legendary Member
Posts: 2326
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 3:54 am
Thanked: 173 times
Followed by:2 members
GMAT Score:710

by gmatmachoman » Sun Jun 20, 2010 12:33 pm
are u sure OA is C??? I am having doubts over that...

IMO B...

Conclusion is capital reserves need to be increased so that employment rate will NOT decline.

pattern : If X happens then Y will NOT happen

How to weaken this kind of scenario??

If X has happened and still Y will happen.

X: capital reserves maintained by companies

Y: decline in the employment rate
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 292
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 8:39 am
Thanked: 6 times
Followed by:1 members

by pnk » Sun Jun 20, 2010 6:55 pm
gmatmachoman wrote:are u sure OA is C??? I am having doubts over that...

IMO B...

Conclusion is capital reserves need to be increased so that employment rate will NOT decline.

pattern : If X happens then Y will NOT happen How to weaken this kind of scenario?? If X has happened and still Y will happen.X: capital reserves maintained by companies
Y: decline in the employment rate
B actually hurt the premise of the argument - in stn/wkn I think we are not suppposed to go against the premises bt rather ensure conclusion does not follow from them. Also, argument talks about capital reserves of major industries in general (average)...some of them may have high/low CR.

This choiice also does not link CR with employment (note this does not say 'If X (CR increased) Y (employment) will happen. Its silent on Y - so wrong. IMO C
Top

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 2228
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 3:28 pm
Location: Montreal, Canada
Thanked: 639 times
Followed by:694 members
GMAT Score:780

by Stacey Koprince » Mon Jun 21, 2010 2:43 pm
I apologize for not following the protocol.
Not a problem! Now you know for future. :)

[FYI: I'm leaving on vacation tomorrow (Tue) evening and won't be back until 5 July. While I'm gone, please talk to other experts; otherwise, I will reply after I return. (It may take me a few days after I get back to get through the backlog of PMs).]

Question stem: "cast doubt" on the "validity of the argument above." We have to weaken the given argument.

Argument:
1) predic of slow econ growth in coming year --> recent decline in employment rate
2) BUT, If major industries had NOT lacked capital reserves --> the predictions would not have caused the employment rate to decline.
3) CONC: If major industries INCR capital reserves --> employment rate won't decline

Assumptions:
i) nothing else could cause the employment rate to decline, as long as major industries do increase capital reserves. is this really true?
ii) "increasing" capital reserves is the same thing as "not lacking" capital reserves. is this really true?

Answers:
(A) There seems to be something missing from the transcription of this choice - possibly minor, possibly major. "A" major industry? "One" major industry? Is it supposed to say "SOME major industrIES?" Please make sure to transcribe problems 100% correctly.
(B) The argument doesn't claim that ALL major industries lacked capital reserves. If some did have capital reserves, that still allows many others to lack capital reserves - which fits in with what the argument claims. Eliminate.
(C) "An increase in labor costs" This affects the first assumption - I have to assume that NOTHING else could possibly cause the employment rate to decline. This one gives me something else that could cause the employment rate to decline. Looking good so far.
(D) The governement could do this. Does the "fixed amount" reflect an "increase" in capital reserves? We don't know beacuse the choice doesn't tell us that? Then it's not a good choice. :) Eliminate.
(E) This choice compares data for this year and last year. The argument's conclusion concerns a prediction for employment rates in the future. That's already one ding against this choice. Further, the argument does not give any information about the differences between what led to the more mild drop in the unemployment rate last year and the more severe unemployment rate drop this year. If I don't know why one was more severe than the other, then it's tough to extrapolate that information to make some kind of future prediction. No good.

In the above, C directly attacks one of the assumptions that must be true in order for the author's argument to make sense (really, the primary assumption, in my opinion). Answer choice E in the article talks about another plan for accomplishing a particular goal - but the other question was specifically asking me to weaken the idea that weakening the currency --> an increase in exports. The fact that a different plan is viable doesn't mean that the existing plan won't work. (For example, I have a plan to lose weight by eating fewer calories every day. You tell me that I could also lose weight by exercising every day, and that doctors think losing weight by exercising is a healthier way to lose weight. Does that mean that I cannot lose weight by eating fewer calories? No. Your statement about exercising doesn't affect my plan one way or the other; it's just another way of doing things.)
Please note: I do not use the Private Messaging system! I will not see any PMs that you send to me!!

Stacey Koprince
GMAT Instructor
Director of Online Community
Manhattan GMAT

Contributor to Beat The GMAT!

Learn more about me
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 46
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 8:54 am
Followed by:1 members

by CaptainM » Sat Jun 26, 2010 12:06 am
Thank you!!!
Thanks a lot!!! :) :)
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 305
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 5:38 am
Thanked: 10 times

by Shawshank » Sat Jun 26, 2010 2:39 am
Stacey Koprince wrote:
I apologize for not following the protocol.
Not a problem! Now you know for future. :)

[FYI: I'm leaving on vacation tomorrow (Tue) evening and won't be back until 5 July. While I'm gone, please talk to other experts; otherwise, I will reply after I return. (It may take me a few days after I get back to get through the backlog of PMs).]

Question stem: "cast doubt" on the "validity of the argument above." We have to weaken the given argument.

Argument:
1) predic of slow econ growth in coming year --> recent decline in employment rate
2) BUT, If major industries had NOT lacked capital reserves --> the predictions would not have caused the employment rate to decline.
3) CONC: If major industries INCR capital reserves --> employment rate won't decline

Assumptions:
i) nothing else could cause the employment rate to decline, as long as major industries do increase capital reserves. is this really true?
ii) "increasing" capital reserves is the same thing as "not lacking" capital reserves. is this really true?

Answers:
(A) There seems to be something missing from the transcription of this choice - possibly minor, possibly major. "A" major industry? "One" major industry? Is it supposed to say "SOME major industrIES?" Please make sure to transcribe problems 100% correctly.
(B) The argument doesn't claim that ALL major industries lacked capital reserves. If some did have capital reserves, that still allows many others to lack capital reserves - which fits in with what the argument claims. Eliminate.
(C) "An increase in labor costs" This affects the first assumption - I have to assume that NOTHING else could possibly cause the employment rate to decline. This one gives me something else that could cause the employment rate to decline. Looking good so far.
(D) The governement could do this. Does the "fixed amount" reflect an "increase" in capital reserves? We don't know beacuse the choice doesn't tell us that? Then it's not a good choice. :) Eliminate.
(E) This choice compares data for this year and last year. The argument's conclusion concerns a prediction for employment rates in the future. That's already one ding against this choice. Further, the argument does not give any information about the differences between what led to the more mild drop in the unemployment rate last year and the more severe unemployment rate drop this year. If I don't know why one was more severe than the other, then it's tough to extrapolate that information to make some kind of future prediction. No good.

In the above, C directly attacks one of the assumptions that must be true in order for the author's argument to make sense (really, the primary assumption, in my opinion). Answer choice E in the article talks about another plan for accomplishing a particular goal - but the other question was specifically asking me to weaken the idea that weakening the currency --> an increase in exports. The fact that a different plan is viable doesn't mean that the existing plan won't work. (For example, I have a plan to lose weight by eating fewer calories every day. You tell me that I could also lose weight by exercising every day, and that doctors think losing weight by exercising is a healthier way to lose weight. Does that mean that I cannot lose weight by eating fewer calories? No. Your statement about exercising doesn't affect my plan one way or the other; it's just another way of doing things.)
Great explanation Stacey... Enjoy your vacation
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Shawshank Redemtion -- Hope is still alive ...
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 1404
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 6:55 pm
Thanked: 18 times
Followed by:2 members

by tanviet » Fri Jul 02, 2010 6:02 am
I find this question hard.

why I miss this question?

I do not see that C is relevant to evidence. There is no labor here.

Why C can be OA?
Top

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 2228
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 3:28 pm
Location: Montreal, Canada
Thanked: 639 times
Followed by:694 members
GMAT Score:780

by Stacey Koprince » Mon Jul 05, 2010 11:41 am
I do not see that C is relevant to evidence. There is no labor here.
There is now, actually, because it's in choice C. :) The problem tells us to assume that the five answer choices are true ("which of the following, if true..."), so now they do all exist. The form of this argument and answer is fairly classic from the perspective of the GMAT:

The conclusion says IF X happens, then Y won't happen. We're asked to weaken this if-->then conclusion. One of the classic ways to weaken such an argument is to show that Y could still happen even if X happens. And that's what answer C tells us.

Conclusion: If people eat less ice cream, then the obesity rate won't increase.

What if people do eat less ice cream but also start going to McDonald's a lot more? The obesity rate might increase even though people are eating less ice cream. So I've just weakened the conclusion.
Please note: I do not use the Private Messaging system! I will not see any PMs that you send to me!!

Stacey Koprince
GMAT Instructor
Director of Online Community
Manhattan GMAT

Contributor to Beat The GMAT!

Learn more about me
Top
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 1:07 am

by gmat.cracker24 » Fri Mar 25, 2011 11:35 pm
Although i understood the expalnation after selecting the wrong answer ...there is something troubling me w.r.t the two examples mentioned
First question :https://www.beatthegmat.com/mba/2010/01/ ... cr-problem
Second Question: current thread

1.If X causes Y and Z also causes Y ,latter arg. doesn't necesarily weakens former arg...OK
Ex. eat less-> loose weight
more exercise->loose weight but more exercise and loose weight doesn't mean eat less and loose weight wont work .
2.If X then Y won't happen and Z then Y happens...here we take latter arg as one that weakens the former

Ex: less icecream->low obesity rate
macdonalds along with less icecream can't ensure low obesity rate hence weakens the conclusion

What exactly is different in these two examples?
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1