No nation can long survive unless its people are united by a common tongue. For proof, we need only consider Canada, which is being torn asunder by conflicts between French-speaking Quebec and the other provinces, which are dominated by English speakers.
Which of the following, if true, most effectively challenges the author’s conclusion?
(A) Conflicts over language have led to violent clashes between the Basque-speaking minority in Spain and the Spanish-speaking majority.
(B) Proposals to declare English the official language of the United States have met with resistance from members of Hispanic and other minority groups.
(C) Economic and political differences, along with linguistic ones, have contributed to the provincial conflicts in Canada.
(D) The public of India, in existence sine 1948, has a population that speaks hundreds of different, though related, languages.
(E) Switzerland has survived for nearly a thousand years as a home for speakers of three different languages
I got this one right...but I thought some choices were close!
5-Day Free Trial
5-day free, full-access trial TTP
Available with Beat the GMAT members only code
MORE DETAILS
DS - 1000 CR
This topic has expert replies
-
Cybermusings
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 559
- Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 1:29 am
- Thanked: 5 times
- Followed by:2 members
-
jayhawk2001
- Community Manager
- Posts: 789
- Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:51 pm
- Location: Silicon valley, California
- Thanked: 30 times
- Followed by:1 members
I'll go with ECybermusings wrote:No nation can long survive unless its people are united by a common tongue. For proof, we need only consider Canada, which is being torn asunder by conflicts between French-speaking Quebec and the other provinces, which are dominated by English speakers.
Which of the following, if true, most effectively challenges the author’s conclusion?
(A) Conflicts over language have led to violent clashes between the Basque-speaking minority in Spain and the Spanish-speaking majority.
(B) Proposals to declare English the official language of the United States have met with resistance from members of Hispanic and other minority groups.
(C) Economic and political differences, along with linguistic ones, have contributed to the provincial conflicts in Canada.
(D) The public of India, in existence sine 1948, has a population that speaks hundreds of different, though related, languages.
(E) Switzerland has survived for nearly a thousand years as a home for speakers of three different languages
I got this one right...but I thought some choices were close!
I guess this one is tricky because of the prior context we have in our
heads
A and B strengthen the argument
C tells us why Canada had problems but it doesn't directly attack the
main conclusion i.e. no country can survive unless people have a
common tongue
D tells us that the languages are related. So it doesn't weaken the
conclusion
E gives evidence to directly attack the main conclusion.
-
bww
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2007 6:25 am
- Location: MA
- Thanked: 1 times
Yep, C is a close one, but slightly out of scope. A strengthens author's argument. B implies that it would be difficult to execute author's assertion; not relevant. D is a weak possibility--the explicit use of "in existence since 1948" implies that India's unity of multiple languages is rather nascent. E is best.Cybermusings wrote:No nation can long survive unless its people are united by a common tongue. For proof, we need only consider Canada, which is being torn asunder by conflicts between French-speaking Quebec and the other provinces, which are dominated by English speakers.
Which of the following, if true, most effectively challenges the author’s conclusion?
(A) Conflicts over language have led to violent clashes between the Basque-speaking minority in Spain and the Spanish-speaking majority.
(B) Proposals to declare English the official language of the United States have met with resistance from members of Hispanic and other minority groups.
(C) Economic and political differences, along with linguistic ones, have contributed to the provincial conflicts in Canada.
(D) The public of India, in existence sine 1948, has a population that speaks hundreds of different, though related, languages.
(E) Switzerland has survived for nearly a thousand years as a home for speakers of three different languages
I got this one right...but I thought some choices were close!
Clearly C or E makes the cut.
The question is asking which option most effectively challenges the conclusion than which option refutes or undermines the author's conclusion.
E is totally refuting the conclusion
C is challenging the conclusion by adding that language is not the only reason for the conflicts and also it refers to Canada and not a different country as in E.
Instructors !!.. plz help on this.
The question is asking which option most effectively challenges the conclusion than which option refutes or undermines the author's conclusion.
E is totally refuting the conclusion
C is challenging the conclusion by adding that language is not the only reason for the conflicts and also it refers to Canada and not a different country as in E.
Instructors !!.. plz help on this.
-
gmatroundabout
- Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 9:37 am
Experts,
If C would have read as follows:
Economic and political differences have contributed to the provincial conflicts in Canada.
Would this statement make C a better contender? Basically, I want to know whether we can weaken an argument by attacking the authenticity of an existing premise on which the conclusion rests?
If C would have read as follows:
Economic and political differences have contributed to the provincial conflicts in Canada.
Would this statement make C a better contender? Basically, I want to know whether we can weaken an argument by attacking the authenticity of an existing premise on which the conclusion rests?
-
selango
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 1460
- Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 1:28 am
- Thanked: 135 times
- Followed by:7 members
IMO C.
Author's conclusion is conflict in canada is due to language.
Option C tell us that also economic and political difference are the reasons for the conflict.This undermines the author conclusion that conflict is due to language.
Option E does undermines the author argument(No nation can survive unless united by common tongue) but not the conclusion
If we are asked to undermine the author argument then option E is correct.
Author's conclusion is conflict in canada is due to language.
Option C tell us that also economic and political difference are the reasons for the conflict.This undermines the author conclusion that conflict is due to language.
Option E does undermines the author argument(No nation can survive unless united by common tongue) but not the conclusion
If we are asked to undermine the author argument then option E is correct.
Author's conclusion is that "No country can survive...". Canada is just an example he has quoted shown by "For proof, we need only consider Canada..."selango wrote:IMO C.
Author's conclusion is conflict in canada is due to language.
Option C tell us that also economic and political difference are the reasons for the conflict.This undermines the author conclusion that conflict is due to language.
Option E does undermines the author argument(No nation can survive unless united by common tongue) but not the conclusion
If we are asked to undermine the author argument then option E is correct.
IMO E
I think it should be E.
In this case the conclusion is that no nation can long survive unless..... The Canada reference is given as a supporting evidence for that argument. Even though C attacks the Canada premise, it doesn't weaken the conclusion as much as E does.
The way I'm thinking - if the author's conclusion was BASED upon the Canada reference then C would have been the right answer but since he merely gives it as a supporting evidence E should be the answer. (I say supporting evidence because of the word choice, "For proof, we need only consider Canada,...." which implies he has already drawn the conclusion and is just looking for an example to support it. He's not BASING his conclusion on this.)
What is the OA?
In this case the conclusion is that no nation can long survive unless..... The Canada reference is given as a supporting evidence for that argument. Even though C attacks the Canada premise, it doesn't weaken the conclusion as much as E does.
The way I'm thinking - if the author's conclusion was BASED upon the Canada reference then C would have been the right answer but since he merely gives it as a supporting evidence E should be the answer. (I say supporting evidence because of the word choice, "For proof, we need only consider Canada,...." which implies he has already drawn the conclusion and is just looking for an example to support it. He's not BASING his conclusion on this.)
What is the OA?
-
sumanr84
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 758
- Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2009 9:32 pm
- Location: Bangalore,India
- Thanked: 67 times
- Followed by:2 members
IMO:ECybermusings wrote:No nation can long survive unless its people are united by a common tongue. For proof, we need only consider Canada, which is being torn asunder by conflicts between French-speaking Quebec and the other provinces, which are dominated by English speakers.
Which of the following, if true, most effectively challenges the author�s conclusion?
(A) Conflicts over language have led to violent clashes between the Basque-speaking minority in Spain and the Spanish-speaking majority.
(B) Proposals to declare English the official language of the United States have met with resistance from members of Hispanic and other minority groups.
(C) Economic and political differences, along with linguistic ones, have contributed to the provincial conflicts in Canada.
(D) The public of India, in existence sine 1948, has a population that speaks hundreds of different, though related, languages.
(E) Switzerland has survived for nearly a thousand years as a home for speakers of three different languages
I got this one right...but I thought some choices were close!
Eliminated contenders based on few words from the argument, "No nation can long survive..". Author means that nations can survive though NOT longer. Since, Switzerland has survived for 1000 years so this definitely weakens Author's claim the most.
C only attacks on the example that Author has used to substantiate his stance, but E directly KILLs the CONCLUSION and is more devastating.
I am on a break !!
-
paddle_sweep
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 379
- Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 12:53 am
- Location: Chennai,India
- Thanked: 3 times
-
atrayee345
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 32
- Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2018 2:58 am
Option A and option B strengthen the argument.Option C tells us why Canada had problems but it doesn't directly attack the main conclusion i.e. no country can survive unless people have a common tongue. Option D tells us that the languages are related. So it doesn't weaken the conclusion. Option E gives evidence to directly attack the main conclusion. Hence (e).
