MGMAT: Analyze Arg Structure (Political Analyst)

This topic has expert replies
User avatar
Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 6:34 am
Location: Atlanta, GA - USA

MGMAT: Analyze Arg Structure (Political Analyst)

by K85 » Fri Apr 10, 2009 5:50 am
I ran into questions yesterday on the MGMAT CAT1 yesterday that I hadn't really seen before in studying for the GMAT. Do these show up on the actual test? (Granted, there were only two of them on the practice CAT). I don't recall seeing one like this on the GMATPrep software.

Political Analyst: After the Soviet Union collapsed, some hoped that freedom would encourage Russians to multiply, but as a result of dislocation and insecurity, the Russian population continues to dwindle at the rate of 700,000 a year. The government proposes to address the problem with a wide range of financial incentives, along with investments in improved health care, road safety and the like. These are positive measures, but they have been tried before, to little avail. A better plan to reverse the population decline is to improve the country's governance in both the public and the private sphere. If a greater part of the population participated in important decisions and shared in the country's wealth, then larger families would result. In addition, if corruption and greed among the elite were curbed, public health would improve and average life expectancy would increase.

The two boldfaced statements serve what function in the argument above?

A. The first is the main point of the analyst's argument; the second is a premise that supports the the first.
B. The first is a premise that undermines an alternative to the analyst's proposal; the second is a premise that supports the analyst's main claim.
C. The first is a premise that contradicts the main point made by the analyst; the second is the main point of the argument.
D. The first is a premise that supports a proposal; the second is that proposal.
E. The first is a conclusion that the argument endorses; the second is a premise that opposes that conclusion.
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

Legendary Member
Posts: 2467
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2008 6:14 pm
Thanked: 331 times
Followed by:11 members

by cramya » Fri Apr 10, 2009 3:02 pm
I would go with B even though C looks quite attractive.

It quite possible to see these questions on the real thing(may be 1 or 2). There are a few on GMAT prep also. It just depends on our luck I guess...

The first bolded argument is referring to the private sphere of things and the second bolded part to the public sphere of things. The analysts says" A better plan to reverse the population decline is to improve the country's governance in both the public and the private sphere"

The first bolded part that says the private sphere incentives have been tried but has not produced any results but yet the analyst continues to favor these incentives in the private sphere of things

Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 21
Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2009 9:35 pm
Thanked: 1 times

by kirvar » Fri Apr 10, 2009 7:03 pm
IMO B

I believe C is not correct. The first statement doesn't contradict the second. It contradicts the alternative proposal.

User avatar
Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 6:34 am
Location: Atlanta, GA - USA

by K85 » Fri Apr 10, 2009 7:16 pm
Thank you guys both for your help. I was hoping I could ignore this style of question, but I guess not :)

Answer below...(from MGMAT)

[spoiler]The analyst recounts a proposal by the Russian government to increase the Russian population. The analyst then dismisses that proposal and makes a counterproposal that he or she then supports with hypothetical scenarios. The claim that the counterproposal (to try good governance) is preferable is the conclusion of the argument.

(A) This choice is incorrect. The first boldface is a fact that indicates the government plan has failed before; it is not the conclusion of the argument. However, the second is a premise in support of the argument’s proposal.

(B) CORRECT. The first is the fact that the government plan has "been tried before, to no avail," a fact that undermines the alternative proposal made by the government. The author's proposal is to improve the country's governance, and the second boldface supports that plan by showing one way in which better governance might lead to a population increase.

(C) The first does not contradict the argument’s conclusion that improved governance will reverse the decline in population. Rather, it undermines the other proposal presented by the government, which is a claim that the argument does not support. The second is not the argument’s main point, but an assertion that supports the conclusion of the argument by showing one way in which better governance might lead to a population increase.

(D) The first is a premise that the government plan has "been tried before, to an avail," which weighs against the preceding proposal. The second is not the proposal that the first directly supports, but an assertion that supports the conclusion of the argument by showing one way in which better governance might lead to a population increase.

(E) The first is not a conclusion at all, rather a factual premise that these measures "have been tried before, to little avail." The second boldface does not oppose the first boldface, rather it is an assertion that supports the conclusion of the argument by showing one way in which better governance might lead to a population increase.[/spoiler]

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 100
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2014 3:58 am

by vanessa.m » Sun May 15, 2016 1:58 am
i think it should be answer B