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

Redeem

Weakens the argument

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 111
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2012 11:09 am
Thanked: 1 times
Followed by:7 members

Weakens the argument

by Soumita Ghosh » Thu Jan 31, 2013 4:01 pm
Image


How A is correct?? Are they decided to build a new stadium (proposed stadium )in replacement of old (previous)stadium?? if it is yes then in argument it is not mentioned clearly.

If it is no then how can be A correct?? If only a new stadium is built in place of old stadium then this choice weaken the argument. If a new stadium is not built in place of old stadium then this new stadium besides old stadium will increase the employment and tax base even if the proposed (new stadium) will actually employ fewer people than the previous people.

For example earlier in the city only 60 people were employed in the previous stadium. But now due to open of a new stadium more 30 people will get employment which is though less in the number than that of previous(old) stadium. So now the total number of people employed in the city is 60+30=90.So the number of employed people increase than before due to construction of new stadium. This choice therefore strengthening the argument instead of weakening the argument.

Am I missing something??
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 417
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2013 8:49 pm
Location: Chapel Hill, NC
Thanked: 132 times
Followed by:93 members
GMAT Score:750

by brianlange77 » Thu Jan 31, 2013 5:53 pm
Soumita Ghosh wrote:Image


How A is correct?? Are they decided to build a new stadium (proposed stadium )in replacement of old (previous)stadium?? if it is yes then in argument it is not mentioned clearly.

If it is no then how can be A correct?? If only a new stadium is built in place of old stadium then this choice weaken the argument. If a new stadium is not built in place of old stadium then this new stadium besides old stadium will increase the employment and tax base even if the proposed (new stadium) will actually employ fewer people than the previous people.

For example earlier in the city only 60 people were employed in the previous stadium. But now due to open of a new stadium more 30 people will get employment which is though less in the number than that of previous(old) stadium. So now the total number of people employed in the city is 60+30=90.So the number of employed people increase than before due to construction of new stadium. This choice therefore strengthening the argument instead of weakening the argument.

Am I missing something??
No, you nailed it spot on. There is an assumption embedded in this argument that once the new stadium is built, the old stadium will no longer be needed. Therefore, using your math, there are now only 30 people working instead of 60, and certainly not 90.

Hope this helps.

-Brian
_________________
Brian Lange
Instructor, Manhattan GMAT
Expert Contributor to Beat The GMAT

Merci, Danke, Grazie, Gracias -- Whichever way you say it, if you found my post helpful, please click on the 'thank' icon in the top right corner of this post.

And I encourage you to click on 'follow' to track all my posts -- all the cool kids are doing it! :-)
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1