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

Redeem

Test 10 Q19 page 141.

Expert replies
by gaurav16 » Tue Apr 17, 2007 5:55 am
hi ,

Kindly help me with the question

19. Industrialists from the country Distopia were accused of promoting the Distopian intervention in the Arcadian civil war merely to insure that the industrialists’ facilities in Arcadia made substantial profits during the war. Yet this cannot be the motive since, as the Distopians foresaw, Distopia’s federal expenses for the intervention were eight billion dollars, whereas, during the war, profits from the Distopian industrialists’ facilities in Arcadia totaled only four billion dollars.
Which of the following, if true, exposes a serious flaw in the argument made in the second sentence above?
(A) During the Arcadian war, many Distopian industrialists with facilities located in Arcadia experienced a significant rise in productivity in their facilities located in Distopia.
(B) The largest proportion of Distopia’s federal expenses is borne by those who receive no significant industrial profits.
(C) Most Distopian industrialists’ facilities located in Arcadia are expected to maintain the level of profits they achieved during the war.
(D) Distopian industrialists’ facilities in Arcadia made substantial profits before the events that triggered the civil war.
(E) Many Distopians expressed concern over the suffering that Arcadians underwent during the civil war



The answer to this question is B .I thought it to be A .I guess I could not understand the meaning of the question asked.Someone Kindly help me in this



Thanks and regards
Gaurav
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by isisalaska » Wed Apr 18, 2007 7:26 am
wow!

Let’ s break this argument:
1st sentence talks about industrialist form Distopia were accused on getting their country into a war for the sake of ensuring profits in Arcadia.
2nd sentence states that that is not the reason since expenses during the war were lower than during no war. And WHY?

We need to find an explanation that weakens the 2nd sentence, that’s it the explanation that finds that the industrialist form Distopia were “wrongly” accused, in other words an explanation that strength the 1st sentence and weakens the 2nd one. Does this make sense? I know it is very confusing… :?

a) talks about productivity, but the passage does not talk about productivity
b) it strengths the 1st sentence by telling you that the federal expenses are coming from industries that do not benefit form the war and, at the same time, weakens the 2nd sentence which is our goal. In conclusion, the war indeed was promoted by industrialists indeed.
Isis Alaska
Join the discussion

by Cybermusings » Thu Apr 19, 2007 3:44 am
Only B explains the reasoning flaw within the second sentence
Join the discussion

by Brad.C » Fri May 13, 2016 1:33 pm
I agree with B. B is the most appropriate answer
Join the discussion