12

This topic has expert replies
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 371
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 10:16 am
Thanked: 6 times
Followed by:1 members

12

by vaivish » Wed Jul 23, 2008 10:20 am
In discussing the pros and cons of monetary union among several European nations, some politicians have claimed that living standards in the countries concerned would first have to converge if monetary union is not to lead to economic chaos. This claim is plainly false, as is demonstrated by the fact that living standards diverge widely between regions within countries that nevertheless have stable economies.
In attempting to refute the politicians’ claim, the author does which one of the following?
(A) argues that those making the claim are mistaken about a temporal relationship that has been observed
(B) presents an earlier instance of the action being considered in which the predicted consequences did not occur
(C) argues that the feared consequence would occur regardless of what course of action was followed
(D) gives an example of a state of affairs, assumed to be relevantly similar, in which the allegedly incompatible elements coexist
(E) points out that if an implicit recommendation is followed, the claim can be neither shown to be true nor shown to be false
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

Legendary Member
Posts: 1159
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2008 10:35 pm
Thanked: 56 times

by raunekk » Wed Jul 23, 2008 10:37 am
this is tough....


has to be D or E..


imo D

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 340
Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2008 8:09 am
Location: India
Thanked: 6 times

Re: 12

by kiranlegend » Wed Jul 23, 2008 10:47 am
vaivish wrote:In discussing the pros and cons of monetary union among several European nations, some politicians have claimed that living standards in the countries concerned would first have to converge if monetary union is not to lead to economic chaos. This claim is plainly false, as is demonstrated by the fact that living standards diverge widely between regions within countries that nevertheless have stable economies.
In attempting to refute the politicians’ claim, the author does which one of the following?
(A) argues that those making the claim are mistaken about a temporal relationship that has been observed
(B) presents an earlier instance of the action being considered in which the predicted consequences did not occur
(C) argues that the feared consequence would occur regardless of what course of action was followed
(D) gives an example of a state of affairs, assumed to be relevantly similar, in which the allegedly incompatible elements coexist
(E) points out that if an implicit recommendation is followed, the claim can be neither shown to be true nor shown to be false
rechanging my thought:p

IMO D

pls post OA

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 164
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 6:34 pm
Location: Bangalore
GMAT Score:590

by iwill » Wed Jul 23, 2008 10:36 pm
IMO D. whats the OA ?

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 371
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 10:16 am
Thanked: 6 times
Followed by:1 members

by vaivish » Thu Jul 24, 2008 12:15 pm
OA is D

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 301
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2008 6:07 am
Thanked: 2 times

by beater » Thu Jul 24, 2008 2:48 pm
Could one of you please explain as to why the answer is D

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 164
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 6:34 pm
Location: Bangalore
GMAT Score:590

by iwill » Thu Jul 24, 2008 9:15 pm
D : gives an example of a state of affairs, assumed to be relevantly similar, in which the allegedly incompatible elements coexist.
and in the para.
"This claim is plainly false, as is demonstrated by the fact that living standards diverge widely between regions within countries that nevertheless have stable economies".
- living stanadards varies widely with in a country, which doesnt have a stable economy. this is an example of coexistence of incompatible elements.

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 300
Joined: Fri Aug 09, 2013 2:26 am

by khanshainur » Wed May 11, 2016 3:07 am
I will Go with option D in this case