Press Secretary:

This topic has expert replies
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 273
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:50 am
Thanked: 5 times
Followed by:3 members

Press Secretary:

by fangtray » Fri May 04, 2012 7:38 am
Press Secretary: Our critics claim that the president's recent highway project cancellations demonstrate a vindictive desire to punish legislative districts controlled by opposition parties. They offer as evidence the fact that 90 percent of the projects canceled were in such districts. But all of the canceled projects had been identified as wasteful in a report written by respected nonpartisan auditors. So the president's choice was clearly motivated by sound budgetary policy, not partisan politics.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the press secretary's argument depends?

a. Canceling highway projects was not the only way for the president to punish legislative districts controlled by opposition parties.

b. The scheduled highway projects identified as wasteful in the report were not mostly projects in districts controlled by the president's party.

c. the number of projects canceled was a significant proportion of all the high way projects that were to be undertaken by the government in the near future.

d. The highway projects canceled in districts controlled by the president's party were not generally more expensive than the projects canceled in districts controlled by opposition parties.

e. Reports by nonpartisan auditors are not generally regarded byt the opposition parties as a source of objective assessments of government projects.
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 1248
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 2:57 pm
Location: Everywhere
Thanked: 503 times
Followed by:192 members
GMAT Score:780

by Bill@VeritasPrep » Fri May 04, 2012 11:46 am
A--other means of punishment are irrelevant.

B--We know that all of the canceled projects were identified as wasteful, but we don't know how many total projects (including ones that weren't canceled) were identified as wasteful. Say there were a total of 50 projects identified as wasteful. If 10 were in the opposition districts and 40 were in the friendly districts, then the fact that 90% of canceled projects were in the opposition districts could lend evidence to the accusations of punishment.

C--total number of projects is irrelevant

D--Project cost is not mentioned

E--this weakens the conclusion
Join Veritas Prep's 2010 Instructor of the Year, Matt Douglas for GMATT Mondays

Visit the Veritas Prep Blog

Try the FREE Veritas Prep Practice Test

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 273
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:50 am
Thanked: 5 times
Followed by:3 members

by fangtray » Fri May 04, 2012 3:10 pm
Bill@VeritasPrep wrote:A--other means of punishment are irrelevant.

B--We know that all of the canceled projects were identified as wasteful, but we don't know how many total projects (including ones that weren't canceled) were identified as wasteful. Say there were a total of 50 projects identified as wasteful. If 10 were in the opposition districts and 40 were in the friendly districts, then the fact that 90% of canceled projects were in the opposition districts could lend evidence to the accusations of punishment.

C--total number of projects is irrelevant

D--Project cost is not mentioned

E--this weakens the conclusion
wow great explanation Bill. thx this clears up why B is correct.

But why does E not work? IF people thought that reports by nonpartisan auditors were biased, then the argument that the president's decision was made on budgetary policy and not politics would be weakened. So couldn't it be assumed that reports by nonpartisan auditors are NEUTRAL (which is what E states) and thus is used as a premise as to why the president's choice was motivated by sound budgetary policy?

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 1248
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 2:57 pm
Location: Everywhere
Thanked: 503 times
Followed by:192 members
GMAT Score:780

by Bill@VeritasPrep » Fri May 04, 2012 6:16 pm
Remember that an assumption is an unstated premise that must be true for the conclusion to be true, i.e. the assumption strengthens the conclusion.

If E had said that these reports ARE regarded as objective, then it would be required for the argument to make sense.
Join Veritas Prep's 2010 Instructor of the Year, Matt Douglas for GMATT Mondays

Visit the Veritas Prep Blog

Try the FREE Veritas Prep Practice Test

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 273
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:50 am
Thanked: 5 times
Followed by:3 members

by fangtray » Fri May 04, 2012 6:46 pm
Bill@VeritasPrep wrote:Remember that an assumption is an unstated premise that must be true for the conclusion to be true, i.e. the assumption strengthens the conclusion.

If E had said that these reports ARE regarded as objective, then it would be required for the argument to make sense.
OHHHH am i reading it with a meaning that is opposite from what is stated?

all those negatives thrown into the sentence is throwing me off. E means that the reports ARE regarded as biased, and we need the assumption to mean that the reports ARE NOT regarded as biased right?

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 1248
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 2:57 pm
Location: Everywhere
Thanked: 503 times
Followed by:192 members
GMAT Score:780

by Bill@VeritasPrep » Fri May 04, 2012 7:46 pm
Yes, exactly.
Join Veritas Prep's 2010 Instructor of the Year, Matt Douglas for GMATT Mondays

Visit the Veritas Prep Blog

Try the FREE Veritas Prep Practice Test