Critical Reasoning

Political Analyst: Because our city is a border city, illegal immigration is an important issue in the current race for mayor. Of the two candidates for mayor, one supports a plan that would attempt to deport the city's 9,000 illegal immigrants and the other does not. Surveys consistently show that about 60% of the city's residents are opposed to the plan, while about 35% are in support of the plan. Therefore, the candidate who does not support the plan will win the election for mayor. All of the following statements weaken the analyst's argument, EXCEPT:

"¢ In the city at issue, most voters make their voting decisions based on the candidates' positions on abortion.

"¢ Of the 35% of residents who support the plan, some are willing to consider alternate plans for addressing illegal immigration.

"¢ Many of the residents who oppose the plan are not registered voters.

"¢ The candidate who supports the plan is the incumbent mayor, and has been elected to four consecutive terms despite taking controversial positions on many important issues.

"¢ Just under 30% of the city's residents are illegal immigrants who cannot vote.



The OA is B, but there are a few points to consider in this question. It gives something new that I want to ask.

1 question: wat is the option E really doing? is it weakening the argument or not affecting the argument at all. According to me, it does not affect the argument at all as the probability involved is very high. 30% could be both included in overall 60% as well as 35% of the lot. If it is with the 60% then it negates or weakens the argument and if it is with the 35% of the lot, then it strengthens the argument. So what is the optimal thing that can be done...











Lets say there is a weaken except question like the above question...
This is a new idea that I got, nothing related to this question but just if GMAT plays this trick then what should a test taker do...


Option A weakens the argument.

Option B strengthens the argument.

Option C also weakens the argument.

Option D weakens the argument as well.

Option E does not affect the argument at all.



So what should be done in this scenario.

Should we opt for option E or option B. both are not weakening the argument but wat is the answer choice to be chosen. Could any you explain to me this thing....

yes !! E do weakens the argument.

60% of the immigrants are opposed to the plan - deporting 9000 illegal immigrants.

So 30 % who cannot vote - belong to this category of people. I dont have much logic to support this but its common sense. Think of something like this - we will never support a bill against corruption and bribery, if we are the ones who benifit the most out of corruption and bribery.

So its now - 30% and 35 % --- this weakens the conclusion.

Hope this helps !!

This one's not clear. Please help.

Regards.

Even though it's common sense to imagine that the illegal immigrants who cannot vote would oppose the plan, you absolutely cannot assume that the 30% illegal population is entirely contained within the 60%. First, they may be 100% of the 5% who did not answer, putting them at under 25% of the city's residents, leaving the two sides tied at 35%. Second, the question isn't using exact percentages, which also should suggest a trap to you.

Just under 30% of the city's residents are illegal immigrants who cannot vote.

Yes right, option E also weakens the argument. 30% of the total residents are immigrants and they will be against the proposal. This means that in the 60% opposition, there are a few immigrants that are the residents themselves and so they cannot vote. Hence lets say out of the 60%, 30% is removed then the majority turns to the other side.
Hence weakens the argument...

Yes Jim is absolutely correct but in GMAT CR the author assumes that the argument is airtight. But in the option E, the argument is not airtight as it can also weaken at the same time strengthen the argument. It is like DS question. So if you feel that the option does not weaken or strengthen an argument completely, then that option gets cancelled off......

Hey,
Can u please mention the source of this question.

Thanx.

How Option A weakens the argument? Please someone elaborate. I can't understand

lunarpower wrote:jim --

Jim@Grockit wrote:Even though it's common sense to imagine that the illegal immigrants who cannot vote would oppose the plan, you absolutely cannot assume that the 30% illegal population is entirely contained within the 60%.

almost every strengthen/weaken problem requires common-sense assumptions.

if one could object in this sort of way, then the answer to almost every s/w problem in the whole official canon would be invalidated.

I understand what you are saying, but I would point to the U.S. Republican party as a prime and common-sense example of something that some people vote for/are in favor of, despite it clearly being against their best interest in some respects. There's probably a similar example in a lot of countries. The OG example isn't a great parallel because we do still accept the passage there as true; my point was that here, we have a missing 5% and inexact numbers before we even hit the answer choices.

I think my advice still stands -- be suspicious of questions set up this way -- but I think I focused too much on that. I actually wonder whether choice B is a typo for E or whether choice B should read "Of the 60% who oppose the plan", thereby suggesting that they are generally in favor of something being done but against this specific plan.