Mayor: The recycling program costs us nearly $1 million to operate every year, and our budget shortfall this year is projected to be $5 million. We need to cut the recycling program in order to help balance the budget.
Consumer Advocate: It costs the city more to throw something out than to recycle it.
The consumer advocate responds to the mayor by
(A) establishing that the mayor's figures were incorrectly calculated
(B) accepting the mayor's conclusion but questioning the legality of the plan
(C) interpreting the mayor's evidence in a way that reduces the validity of the mayor's claim
(D) introducing a new piece of information that calls into question the validity of the mayor's conclusion
(E) pointing out that the mayor has not adequately considered the potential causes and effects of the budget shortfall
OA D
Source: Manhattan Prep
5-Day Free Trial
5-day free, full-access trial TTP
Available with Beat the GMAT members only code
MORE DETAILS
Mayor: The recycling program costs us nearly $1 million to
This topic has expert replies
-
BTGmoderatorDC
- 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
-
deloitte247
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 2214
- Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 2:22 pm
- Followed by:5 members
Timer
00:00
Your Answer
A
B
C
D
E
Global Stats
We need to find the technique that the consumer advocate used in responding to the Mayor.
Premise:
- recycling program costs nearly $1 million.
- that year's budget has been cut by $5 million.
Explanation: The mayor believes that cutting out the recycling program will help to balance the budget, but the consumer advocate gave a logical explanation to why the recycling program shouldn't be cut off.
Option A - Incorrect
The consumer advocate didn't respond by using any figures at all.
Option B - Incorrect
Well, there is no indication through the advocate's response to show that the mayor's conclusion was accepted; neither was its legality questioned.
Option C - Incorrect
This reduces the validity of the mayor's claims, but the response is not an interpretation of the claim.
Option D - Correct
The consumer advocate provided a new piece of information that gives a different perspective to the mayors claim.
It gives an alternative view and calls to question the validity of the mayors' claim.
Option E - Incorrect
The advocate's response is not about the potential causes and effect of the budget shortfall, but about the recycling program in particular.
Premise:
- recycling program costs nearly $1 million.
- that year's budget has been cut by $5 million.
Explanation: The mayor believes that cutting out the recycling program will help to balance the budget, but the consumer advocate gave a logical explanation to why the recycling program shouldn't be cut off.
Option A - Incorrect
The consumer advocate didn't respond by using any figures at all.
Option B - Incorrect
Well, there is no indication through the advocate's response to show that the mayor's conclusion was accepted; neither was its legality questioned.
Option C - Incorrect
This reduces the validity of the mayor's claims, but the response is not an interpretation of the claim.
Option D - Correct
The consumer advocate provided a new piece of information that gives a different perspective to the mayors claim.
It gives an alternative view and calls to question the validity of the mayors' claim.
Option E - Incorrect
The advocate's response is not about the potential causes and effect of the budget shortfall, but about the recycling program in particular.
