Critical Reasoning

Press Secretary: Our critics claim that the President’s recent highway project cancellations demonstrate a vindictive desire to punish legislative districts controlled by opposition parties. They offer as evidence the fact that 90 percent of the projects canceled were in such districts. But all of the canceled projects had been identified as wasteful in a report written by respected nonpartisan auditors. So the President’s choice was clearly motivated by sound budgetary policy, not partisan politics.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the press secretary’s argument depends?

A. Canceling highway projects was not the only way for the President to punish legislative districts controlled by opposition parties.
B. The scheduled highway projects identified as wasteful in the report were not mostly projects in districts controlled by the President’s party.
C. The number of projects canceled was a significant proportion of all the highway projects that were to be undertaken by the government in the near future.
D. The highway projects canceled in districts controlled by the President’s party were not generally more expensive than the projects canceled in districts controlled by opposition parties.
E. Reports by nonpartisan auditors are not generally regarded by the opposition parties as a source of objective assessments of government projects

OA l8r ...plz do explain your logic!!

Its D

Conclusion: So the President’s choice was clearly motivated by sound budgetary policy

To strengthen the conclusion, the expenses of the cancelled projects must have been higher than non-cancelled projects. Then only, they save expenses and conclude as sound bedgetary policy.

D states that, projecst in the president's district were not more expensive and this is the assumption. If this were not true, then it should have been 90% cancelled projects of president's district projects rather than those of opposition, and hence if still,thee president is going ahead with 90% cancellation of opposition projects . .. he is surely biased

IMO D,
if the projects cancelled in the districts controlled by the President’s party(only 10%) were generally more expensive than the projects canceled in districts controlled by opposition parties(90%), then the president should be cancelling more projects in his party's districts and not in opposition party's districts

But guys OA given is B
i also think D is right

geet wrote:But guys OA given is B
i also think D is right

[spoiler]
That was a tricky one. It is indeed B
https://www.beatthegmat.com/1-cr-questio ... t7924.html[/spoiler]

madhur_ahuja wrote:

geet wrote:But guys OA given is B
i also think D is right

[spoiler]
That was a tricky one. It is indeed B
https://www.beatthegmat.com/1-cr-questio ... t7924.html[/spoiler]

hey thanx you and stuart...this question really messed me up!!!

i am not still not clear about explanation from stuart. What if wasteful projects belonged to presidents' party district , what difference it would have made? can anyone explain

thanks

This is indeed very tricky...can't think of the answer as 'B'.

I went for B the moment i looked it up. Instinct I guess. Its a classic GMAT CR. Having said that I really dont see how D could be correct answer.

Answer is clearly B

D: It is clearly out of scope. The argument does not speaks about the monetary value of the projects. It only mentions about wasteful and non wasteful.
eg A project that is 100mn$ and a project that costs 50mn$ may both be wasteful. We do not know on what basis the projects have been classified as such.

Tip: Do not assume any info

Cheers
TJ

B makes most sense

Suppose I modify (E)

E. Reports by nonpartisan auditors are generally regarded by the opposition parties as a source of objective assessments of government projects

(have removed 'not')


WOULD YOU GUYS NOW PICK (E) OVER (B)?

A. Canceling highway projects was not the only way for the President to punish legislative districts controlled by opposition parties. – wrong as the argument is not about the ways to punish legislative districts controlled by opposition parties

B. The scheduled highway projects identified as wasteful in the report were not mostly projects in districts controlled by the President’s party. – wrong, because, although it is the inference from the argument, it is not the assumption letting to make an inference that President’s choice was clearly motivated by sound budgetary policy

C. The number of projects canceled was a significant proportion of all the highway projects that were to be undertaken by the government in the near future. – wrong as it is out of scope what will be in the nearest future

D. The highway projects canceled in districts controlled by the President’s party were not generally more expensive than the projects canceled in districts controlled by opposition parties. – CORRECT, the expenses on the cancelled projects in districts controlled by the president’s party and in districts controlled by opposition parties are the same, so there can be no prejudice to the projects in districts controlled by opposed parties – thus the cancellation decision was motivated by budget policy

E. Reports by nonpartisan auditors are not generally regarded by the opposition parties as a source of objective assessments of government projects – wrong, as the author of the statement makes an assumption that a report written by respected nonpartisan auditors is a reliable source of evidence that president’s choice was clearly motivated by sound budgetary policy. Thus the statement weakens the conclusion and can be negated

Can some expert explain why b and not d?

Thanks in advance.

+1 B

D cannot be the answer. The argument talks about whether a project is wasteful or not. It doesn't matter its cost. A cheap project can be more wasteful than an expensive project. For example, a wood bridge over a river could be more wasteful than the most modern bridge if nobody will cross the wood bridge. The cost is out of scope.

Although I don't like B, at least rephrase part of the argument. B is the answer.