BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

12

Expert replies
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
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

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


has to be D or E..


imo D
Join the discussion

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
Join the discussion

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

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

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

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.
Join the discussion

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