Weakens the argument
This topic has expert replies
-
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 111
- Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2012 11:09 am
- Thanked: 1 times
- Followed by:7 members
How A is correct?? Are they decided to build a new stadium (proposed stadium )in replacement of old (previous)stadium?? if it is yes then in argument it is not mentioned clearly.
If it is no then how can be A correct?? If only a new stadium is built in place of old stadium then this choice weaken the argument. If a new stadium is not built in place of old stadium then this new stadium besides old stadium will increase the employment and tax base even if the proposed (new stadium) will actually employ fewer people than the previous people.
For example earlier in the city only 60 people were employed in the previous stadium. But now due to open of a new stadium more 30 people will get employment which is though less in the number than that of previous(old) stadium. So now the total number of people employed in the city is 60+30=90.So the number of employed people increase than before due to construction of new stadium. This choice therefore strengthening the argument instead of weakening the argument.
Am I missing something??
GMAT/MBA Expert
- brianlange77
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 417
- Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2013 8:49 pm
- Location: Chapel Hill, NC
- Thanked: 132 times
- Followed by:93 members
- GMAT Score:750
No, you nailed it spot on. There is an assumption embedded in this argument that once the new stadium is built, the old stadium will no longer be needed. Therefore, using your math, there are now only 30 people working instead of 60, and certainly not 90.Soumita Ghosh wrote:
How A is correct?? Are they decided to build a new stadium (proposed stadium )in replacement of old (previous)stadium?? if it is yes then in argument it is not mentioned clearly.
If it is no then how can be A correct?? If only a new stadium is built in place of old stadium then this choice weaken the argument. If a new stadium is not built in place of old stadium then this new stadium besides old stadium will increase the employment and tax base even if the proposed (new stadium) will actually employ fewer people than the previous people.
For example earlier in the city only 60 people were employed in the previous stadium. But now due to open of a new stadium more 30 people will get employment which is though less in the number than that of previous(old) stadium. So now the total number of people employed in the city is 60+30=90.So the number of employed people increase than before due to construction of new stadium. This choice therefore strengthening the argument instead of weakening the argument.
Am I missing something??
Hope this helps.
-Brian
_________________
Brian Lange
Instructor, Manhattan GMAT
Expert Contributor to Beat The GMAT
Merci, Danke, Grazie, Gracias -- Whichever way you say it, if you found my post helpful, please click on the 'thank' icon in the top right corner of this post.
And I encourage you to click on 'follow' to track all my posts -- all the cool kids are doing it!
Brian Lange
Instructor, Manhattan GMAT
Expert Contributor to Beat The GMAT
Merci, Danke, Grazie, Gracias -- Whichever way you say it, if you found my post helpful, please click on the 'thank' icon in the top right corner of this post.
And I encourage you to click on 'follow' to track all my posts -- all the cool kids are doing it!