Critical Reasoning

Mr. Mead: Turning this subway system over to private ownership will surely not make it financially viable. After all, the reason the system is now government-owned is precisely that in 1979 its original private owners went bankrupt operating it.
Ms. Gallis: But remember that government price controls were keeping fares unreasonably low in the 1970's.

Of the following, the best assessment of the logical role played by Ms. Gallis' response is that her response

(A) offers additional evidence for the correctness of Mr. Mead's conclusion
(B) states one of Mr. Mead's tacit assumptions
(C) contradicts Mr. Mead's factual claims about the system's original owners
(D) identifies a weakness in the evidence Mr. Mead uses as a basis for his conclusion
(E) implies that Mr. Mead's conclusion is correct, but not for the reasons Mr. Mead gives

For discussion..OA to follow

IMO D

(A) offers additional evidence for the correctness of Mr. Mead's conclusion .. There is no discussion of conclusion by second speaker

(B) states one of Mr. Mead's tacit assumptions .. This was not assumed by first.

(C) contradicts Mr. Mead's factual claims about the system's original owners
It is not contradicting, although it is correcting.

(D) identifies a weakness in the evidence Mr. Mead uses as a basis for his conclusion .. Right.

(E) implies that Mr. Mead's conclusion is correct, but not for the reasons Mr. Mead gives .. It never implies that it is correct.

madhur_ahuja wrote: (C) contradicts Mr. Mead's factual claims about the system's original owners
It is not contradicting, although it is correcting.

Can you explain the difference between contradicting and correcting? I think the difference is subtle though.

crackgmat007 wrote:

madhur_ahuja wrote: (C) contradicts Mr. Mead's factual claims about the system's original owners
It is not contradicting, although it is correcting.

Can you explain the difference between contradicting and correcting? I think the difference is subtle though.

Yes. Contradiction is opposite. They cannot occur together.

For Ex:
I have 10 chocolates and , I do not have any chocolate ... is a contradiction.

I have 10 chocolates and, I have 5 chocolates ... Here its the correction.

Also, this would help:
Dictionary mearning:
a statement that is necessarily false; "the statement `he is brave and he is not brave' is a contradiction"

Should be D.

However i think C is neither correcting nor contradicting the claim. Ms. Gallis, claim just provides one of the reasons for private companies going bankrupt.

C is not contradicting Mead's claim.

should be D

Another vote for D

Vote for D

IMO D

What's the OA?

One more D
I guess its time for OA.

crackgmat007 wrote:Mr. Mead: Turning this subway system over to private ownership will surely not make it financially viable. After all, the reason the system is now government-owned is precisely that in 1979 its original private owners went bankrupt operating it.
Ms. Gallis: But remember that government price controls were keeping fares unreasonably low in the 1970's.

Of the following, the best assessment of the logical role played by Ms. Gallis' response is that her response

(A) offers additional evidence for the correctness of Mr. Mead's conclusion
(B) states one of Mr. Mead's tacit assumptions
(C) contradicts Mr. Mead's factual claims about the system's original owners
(D) identifies a weakness in the evidence Mr. Mead uses as a basis for his conclusion
(E) implies that Mr. Mead's conclusion is correct, but not for the reasons Mr. Mead gives

For discussion..OA to follow

its d

mr. mead cites that the reason government runs the subway today is because the private sector failed at running it in 1979. so when ms. gallis cites that the reason the private sector failed is because of government, keeping fares unreasonably low, she is exposing a weakness in mr. mead's evidence. answer d.

the other options are over the top and out of scope.

I am leaning more towards D, but I'm not sure about it.