Critical Reasoning

During the Great Depression, Roosevelt's New Deal expanded federal authority by creating several new government agencies designed to provide and administer relief to the country, which had been devastated by the 1929 stock market crash. Many agencies created under the New Deal were discontinued in subsequent decades, however, when policymakers grew uncomfortable with the amount of power wielded by the federal government. Additionally, a large number of economists at the time felt the market had recovered to the point that federal regulation had become more a hindrance to than a provider of economic stability.

The economists' support of the discontinuation of New Deal programs rests on which of the following assumptions about the role of the federal government in the market?

Interference by federal government in the market can never create economic stability.
Federal regulation of the market is an emergency measure and, as such, should be temporary.
Agencies created under the New Deal routinely exercised control beyond what was stated in their charters.
Policymakers who discontinued New Deal programs were not the same policymakers who originally implemented them.
New Deal programs designed to provide economic relief actually perpetuated market instability.

IMO: B

Dude

Can you provide your reasoning behind this?

Ashujain wrote:IMO: B

karthikpandian19 wrote:Dude

Can you provide your reasoning behind this?

Ashujain wrote:IMO: B

A: Out of scope
B: Yes, last line of the argument - Additionally, a large number of economists at the time felt the market had recovered to the point that federal regulation had become more a hindrance to than a provider of economic stability, signals towards this assumption
C: Out of scope, Sentence - policymakers grew uncomfortable with the amount of power wielded by the federal government, can be misleading towards this answer choice but it does not mention that they used more control than stated in their charters.
D: Out of scope
E: Out of scope

EDIT: The correct answer was B. I will highlight my mistake so that no one else uses the same line of reasoning.


The correct answer should be E. Let me explain:

Interference by federal government in the market can never create economic stability.
We don't know that to be true from the paragraph. "Never" is too harsh. NO.

Federal regulation of the market is an emergency measure and, as such, should be temporary.
Just because something is an emergency measure, it doesn't mean it is temporary. Also, nowhere does the explanation of the author purport this view. .

EDIT: My explanation underlined has the wrong line of reasoning. If the economists felt that the regulation was a temporary measure and had served its time, then the last line supports this. Hence YES.

Agencies created under the New Deal routinely exercised control beyond what was stated in their charters.
This is out of context. Why would the economists assume that Agencies "routinely" exercised control beyond their charters. NO.

Policymakers who discontinued New Deal programs were not the same policymakers who originally implemented them.
This is not an assumption. Also, we don't know if the policymakers had changed in those years. NO.

By this point, the correct answer by elimination should be [spoiler]E. Let's check.
[/spoiler]
New Deal programs designed to provide economic relief actually perpetuated market instability.
This assumption is inherent in economists saying that "federal regulation had become more a hindrance to than a provider of economic stability."
This tells us that
Federal regulation had now become more of a hindrance, than what it was earlier, in this case, "a provider of economic stability"
The mistake I made above is reading had into the sentence when it didn't exist. This option is wrong since we know that the markets have stabilized. Hence, This CANNOT be the correct assumption.

EDIT: Thanks Karthik

Let me know if this helps

What is the OA and OE?

IMO the answer should be E

I have eventually boiled down to B and E as other choices has little relevance with stimulus.

Also Federal regulation of market need not be removed just because it was implemented during emergency. If those measures are actually helping the market then they can be continued.

What is the OA??
Regards,
Chetan Sharma

The OA is B

The OE is as follows:

Conclusion:
New deal program have become a market hindrance whereas once it preformed the function of market stability. So this program should be discontinued.

The assumption shld clearly support the conclusion.

During the Great Depression, Roosevelt's New Deal expanded federal authority by creating several new government agencies designed to provide and administer relief to the country, which had been devastated by the 1929 stock market crash. Many agencies created under the New Deal were discontinued in subsequent decades, however, when policymakers grew uncomfortable with the amount of power wielded by the federal government. Additionally, a large number of economists at the time felt the market had recovered to the point that federal regulation had become more a hindrance to than a provider of economic stability.

The economists' support of the discontinuation of New Deal programs rests on which of the following assumptions about the role of the federal government in the market?

Interference by federal government in the market can never create economic stability. ---- Talks abt create stability and not abt this program....irrelevant
Federal regulation of the market is an emergency measure and, as such, should be temporary. --- Clearcut assumption. New deal program is an emergency measure implied earlier and shld be temporary. And removed once when the intention of its introduction is completed. This is valid choice.(but let's continue with other choices to see their views)
Agencies created under the New Deal routinely exercised control beyond what was stated in their charters. ---- Tells abt the implication and not the assumption
Policymakers who discontinued New Deal programs were not the same policymakers who originally implemented them. ------ Irrelevant, as we are not going to anything with the policy makers
New Deal programs designed to provide economic relief actually perpetuated market instability.---- This statement is partly wrong and partly correct. Meaning: 1. Economic relief actually perpetuated market instability is wrong as it did its intended job when it was introduced. 2. Now it creates market instability......hence becoz of 2 faces this statement is invalid

During the Great Depression, Roosevelt's New Deal expanded federal authority by creating several new government agencies designed to provide and administer relief to the country, which had been devastated by the 1929 stock market crash. Many agencies created under the New Deal were discontinued in subsequent decades, however, when policymakers grew uncomfortable with the amount of power wielded by the federal government. Additionally, a large number of economists at the time felt the market had recovered to the point that federal regulation had become more a hindrance to than a provider of economic stability.

The economists' support of the discontinuation of New Deal programs rests on which of the following assumptions about the role of the federal government in the market?

Interference by federal government in the market can never create economic stability. ---- Talks abt create stability and not abt this program....irrelevant
Federal regulation of the market is an emergency measure and, as such, should be temporary. --- Clearcut assumption. New deal program is an emergency measure implied earlier and shld be temporary. And removed once when the intention of its introduction is completed. This is valid choice.(but let's continue with other choices to see their views)

Hi,
I'm not totally convinced about B. From where did you infer that Federal regulation of the market is an emergency measure? The passage says that Roosevelt's New Deal expanded federal authority, that means that federal authority was already existing(as the New Deal was expanding it), so you can't really say that it was an emergency measure or a temporary one.

Also if it was a temporary measure, then why would the economists support the discontinuation of New Deal programs based on this assumption? I'm unable to understand the relation between these 2 things. Can you pl explain in detail?

urshohini wrote:

During the Great Depression, Roosevelt's New Deal expanded federal authority by creating several new government agencies designed to provide and administer relief to the country, which had been devastated by the 1929 stock market crash. Many agencies created under the New Deal were discontinued in subsequent decades, however, when policymakers grew uncomfortable with the amount of power wielded by the federal government. Additionally, a large number of economists at the time felt the market had recovered to the point that federal regulation had become more a hindrance to than a provider of economic stability.

The economists' support of the discontinuation of New Deal programs rests on which of the following assumptions about the role of the federal government in the market?

Interference by federal government in the market can never create economic stability. ---- Talks abt create stability and not abt this program....irrelevant
Federal regulation of the market is an emergency measure and, as such, should be temporary. --- Clearcut assumption. New deal program is an emergency measure implied earlier and shld be temporary. And removed once when the intention of its introduction is completed. This is valid choice.(but let's continue with other choices to see their views)

Hi,
I'm not totally convinced about B. From where did you infer that Federal regulation of the market is an emergency measure? The passage says that Roosevelt's New Deal expanded federal authority, that means that federal authority was already existing(as the New Deal was expanding it), so you can't really say that it was an emergency measure or a temporary one.

Also if it was a temporary measure, then why would the economists support the discontinuation of New Deal programs based on this assumption? I'm unable to understand the relation between these 2 things. Can you pl explain in detail?

What did the economists conclude?
That agencies created under the New Deal should be discontinued.
The assumption is WHAT MUST BE TRUE for this conclusion to be valid.
Often the easiest way to identify the correct answer is to apply the NEGATION TEST.
Since the correct answer is what must be true for the conclusion to be valid, the NEGATION of the correct answer will render the conclusion INVALID.
Answer choice B, negated:
Federal regulation of the market is NOT an emergency measure; it should NOT be temporary.
If federal regulation should NOT be temporary, then the position of the economists is invalid.
Since the negation of B invalidates the economists' conclusion, B is the assumption: WHAT MUST BE TRUE for the their conclusion to be valid.

The correct answer is B.

GMATGuruNY wrote:

urshohini wrote:

During the Great Depression, Roosevelt's New Deal expanded federal authority by creating several new government agencies designed to provide and administer relief to the country, which had been devastated by the 1929 stock market crash. Many agencies created under the New Deal were discontinued in subsequent decades, however, when policymakers grew uncomfortable with the amount of power wielded by the federal government. Additionally, a large number of economists at the time felt the market had recovered to the point that federal regulation had become more a hindrance to than a provider of economic stability.

The economists' support of the discontinuation of New Deal programs rests on which of the following assumptions about the role of the federal government in the market?

Interference by federal government in the market can never create economic stability. ---- Talks abt create stability and not abt this program....irrelevant
Federal regulation of the market is an emergency measure and, as such, should be temporary. --- Clearcut assumption. New deal program is an emergency measure implied earlier and shld be temporary. And removed once when the intention of its introduction is completed. This is valid choice.(but let's continue with other choices to see their views)

Hi,
I'm not totally convinced about B. From where did you infer that Federal regulation of the market is an emergency measure? The passage says that Roosevelt's New Deal expanded federal authority, that means that federal authority was already existing(as the New Deal was expanding it), so you can't really say that it was an emergency measure or a temporary one.

Also if it was a temporary measure, then why would the economists support the discontinuation of New Deal programs based on this assumption? I'm unable to understand the relation between these 2 things. Can you pl explain in detail?

What did the economists conclude?
That agencies created under the New Deal should be discontinued.
The assumption is WHAT MUST BE TRUE for this conclusion to be valid.
Often the easiest way to identify the correct answer is to apply the NEGATION TEST.
Since the correct answer is what must be true for the conclusion to be valid, the NEGATION of the correct answer will render the conclusion INVALID.
Answer choice B, negated:
Federal regulation of the market is NOT an emergency measure; it should NOT be temporary.
If federal regulation should NOT be temporary, then the position of the economists is invalid.
Since the negation of B invalidates the economists' conclusion, B is the assumption: WHAT MUST BE TRUE for the their conclusion to be valid.

The correct answer is B.

I still didnt get it. Even C if negated makes the reason the economists gave, invalid.
Can someone please help me understand.

Katy,

When you negate statement C (Agencies created under the New Deal routinely exercised control beyond what was stated in their charters.)

It states "Agencies created under the New Deal did not routinely exercised control beyond what was stated in their charters."

Conclusion of this argument is: "New deal program have become a market hindrance whereas once it preformed the function of market stability. So this program should be discontinued. "

When negated C, it tells us abt only the hinderance in the exercise of the control and nothing else. It doesnot say anything abt to be discontinued or continued. As the conclusion doesnt fall by negation, this is not the correct answer

katy_123 wrote:

GMATGuruNY wrote:

urshohini wrote:

During the Great Depression, Roosevelt's New Deal expanded federal authority by creating several new government agencies designed to provide and administer relief to the country, which had been devastated by the 1929 stock market crash. Many agencies created under the New Deal were discontinued in subsequent decades, however, when policymakers grew uncomfortable with the amount of power wielded by the federal government. Additionally, a large number of economists at the time felt the market had recovered to the point that federal regulation had become more a hindrance to than a provider of economic stability.

The economists' support of the discontinuation of New Deal programs rests on which of the following assumptions about the role of the federal government in the market?

Interference by federal government in the market can never create economic stability. ---- Talks abt create stability and not abt this program....irrelevant
Federal regulation of the market is an emergency measure and, as such, should be temporary. --- Clearcut assumption. New deal program is an emergency measure implied earlier and shld be temporary. And removed once when the intention of its introduction is completed. This is valid choice.(but let's continue with other choices to see their views)

Hi,
I'm not totally convinced about B. From where did you infer that Federal regulation of the market is an emergency measure? The passage says that Roosevelt's New Deal expanded federal authority, that means that federal authority was already existing(as the New Deal was expanding it), so you can't really say that it was an emergency measure or a temporary one.

Also if it was a temporary measure, then why would the economists support the discontinuation of New Deal programs based on this assumption? I'm unable to understand the relation between these 2 things. Can you pl explain in detail?

What did the economists conclude?
That agencies created under the New Deal should be discontinued.
The assumption is WHAT MUST BE TRUE for this conclusion to be valid.
Often the easiest way to identify the correct answer is to apply the NEGATION TEST.
Since the correct answer is what must be true for the conclusion to be valid, the NEGATION of the correct answer will render the conclusion INVALID.
Answer choice B, negated:
Federal regulation of the market is NOT an emergency measure; it should NOT be temporary.
If federal regulation should NOT be temporary, then the position of the economists is invalid.
Since the negation of B invalidates the economists' conclusion, B is the assumption: WHAT MUST BE TRUE for the their conclusion to be valid.

The correct answer is B.

I still didnt get it. Even C if negated makes the reason the economists gave, invalid.
Can someone please help me understand.

I fell for C the found out it can never be tied to the conclusion .