Of the two proposals for solving the traffic problems

This topic has expert replies
Moderator
Posts: 7187
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 4:43 pm
Followed by:23 members

Timer

00:00

Your Answer

A

B

C

D

E

Global Stats

Of the two proposals for solving the traffic problems on Main Street, Chen's plan is better for the city as a whole, as is clear from the fact that the principal supporter of Ripley's plan is Smith Stores. Smith Stores, with its highly paid consultants, knows where its own interest lies and, moreover, has supported its own interests in the past, even to the detriment of the city as a whole.

The faulty reasoning in which one of the following is most parallel to that in the argument above?

(A) Surely Centreville should oppose adoption of the regional planning commission's new plan since it is not in Centreville's interest, even though it might be in the interest of some towns in the region.

(B) The school board should support the plan for the new high school since this plan was recommended by the well-qualified consultants whom the school board hired at great expense.

(C) Of the two budget proposals, the mayor's is clearly preferable to the city council's, since the mayor's budget addresses the needs of the city as a whole, whereas the city council is protecting special interests.

(D) Nomura is clearly a better candidate for college president than Miller, since Nomura has the support of the three deans who best understand the president's job and with whom the president will have to work most closely.

(E) The planned light-rail system will clearly serve suburban areas well, since its main opponent is the city government, which has always ignored the needs of the suburbs and sought only to protect the interests of the city.

Legendary Member
Posts: 2214
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 2:22 pm
Followed by:5 members

by deloitte247 » Wed Jun 20, 2018 6:47 am

Timer

00:00

Your Answer

A

B

C

D

E

Global Stats

After a critical analyses of the options below, here is the drawn out analyses for each option.

Option A - INCORRECT.
This statement was in support of the selfish interest of the minister even though, it seeks not to to be in support of the whole city but rather in the interest of few.

Option B - INCORRECT.
This is an assumption and confusable proposal made for the people to support the ministers proposal by the highly paid and recognized consultant of the minister, even though they are not fully aware of the selfish interest of the minister in the past, and that his present proposal is still not going to be favorable to the city and its people.

Option C - CORRECT.
This statement has rightly defined and give meaning to the question. It has critically defined the two proposal submitted by the ministers, as one tends to be more favorable to the whole city while, the other seeks to be of highly selfish interest and favorable to just one person ''the minister'' who has been ruling them for a while now. This conviction was successful due to the help of the highly recognized consultant the minister had and which the people also trust.

Option D -INCORRECT.
Reverse is the case in this option, had it been that the minister with the good interest proposal was voted in for it would have been good, but, it wasn't so when the people started believing the selfish interest of the ruling minister over their own interest.

Option E - INCORRECT
However, the interest of the whole city would have been accomplished if the other proposal was accepted but rather it wasn't and the selfish minister was able to gain the heart of the people. This option doesn't interpret the question.