The lobbyist accused of offering a large cash bribe to the senator defended himself: "When I left the house that day, I was carrying no money with me, so I could not possibly have had anything to offer to the senator. Moreover, immediately before I met with the senator, I spent all my cash on lunch with a colleague at an upscale restaurant, which also explains why I was not in a position to offer the senator a bribe."
This argument is most vulnerable to what criticism?
A) It offers a conclusion that is no more than a paraphrase of one piece of the pieces of information provided in its support.
B) It presents as evidence in support of a claim information that is inconsistent with other evidence presented in support of the same claim.
C) It does not preserve the proper time relationship between cause and effect.
D) It presents two pieces of evidence that do not support the same conclusion.
E) It confuses basic financial information with legal claims.
How to find the best argument in this?
OA B
The lobbyist accused of offering a large cash bribe
This topic has expert replies
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 7187
- Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 4:43 pm
- Followed by:23 members
- EconomistGMATTutor
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 555
- Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2017 4:18 pm
- Thanked: 180 times
- Followed by:12 members
The conclusion: I did not offer a bribe.
The evidence: I left the house without money. I then spent all my money on lunch.
You ask about finding the "best argument." I'm not sure what that means. Your task here is to find the flaw in the argument. Clearly, the lobbyist is contradicting him or herself. You can't spend money at lunch if you don't have any money with you. That's what Choice B says. The two pieces of evidence, both used to support the conclusion, contradict each other.
I'm available if you'd like any follow up.
The evidence: I left the house without money. I then spent all my money on lunch.
You ask about finding the "best argument." I'm not sure what that means. Your task here is to find the flaw in the argument. Clearly, the lobbyist is contradicting him or herself. You can't spend money at lunch if you don't have any money with you. That's what Choice B says. The two pieces of evidence, both used to support the conclusion, contradict each other.
I'm available if you'd like any follow up.
GMAT Prep From The Economist
We offer 70+ point score improvement money back guarantee.
Our average student improves 98 points.
We offer 70+ point score improvement money back guarantee.
Our average student improves 98 points.