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

Redeem

Defense budget!!

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1083
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 9:38 pm
Thanked: 127 times
Followed by:14 members

Defense budget!!

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.
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 392
Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 2:42 am
Location: Bangalore, India
Thanked: 116 times
Followed by:10 members
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.
Top
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
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 392
Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 2:42 am
Location: Bangalore, India
Thanked: 116 times
Followed by:10 members
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.
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1