Contrary to the charges made by some of...Good One ..

[airan]

Questions 2-3 are based on the following.

Contrary to the charges made by some of its opponents, the provisions of the new deficit-reduction law for indiscriminate cuts in the federal budget are justified. Opponents should remember that the New Deal pulled this country out of great economic troubles even though some of its programs were later found to be unconstitutional.

2. The author’s method of attacking the charges of certain opponents of the new deficit-reduction law is to

(A) attack the character of the opponents rather than their claim

(B) imply an analogy between the law and some New Deal programs

(C) point out that the opponents’ claims imply a dilemma

(D) show that the opponents’ reasoning leads to an absurd conclusion

(E) show that the New Deal also called for indiscriminate cuts in the federal budget




3. The opponents could effectively defend their position against the author’s strategy by pointing out that

(A) the expertise of those opposing the law is outstanding

(B) the lack of justification for the new law does not imply that those who drew it up were either inept or immoral

(C) the practical application of the new law will not entail indiscriminate budget cuts

(D) economic troubles present at the time of the New Deal were equal in severity to those that have led to the present law

(E) the fact that certain flawed programs or laws have improved the economy does not prove that every such program can do so
***Moved the 4th question to new thread.

[chidcguy]

2. The author’s method of attacking the charges of certain opponents of the new deficit-reduction law is to

(A) attack the character of the opponents rather than their claim

(B) imply an analogy between the law and some New Deal programs

(C) point out that the opponents’ claims imply a dilemma

(D) show that the opponents’ reasoning leads to an absurd conclusion

(E) show that the New Deal also called for indiscriminate cuts in the federal budget

My pick is B

Current law has indiscriminate cuts

New deal had unconstitutional provisions but results were good

Proponents are saying that this current new law will also be good evn though everything is not justified. Hence B

[chidcguy]

3. The opponents could effectively defend their position against the author’s strategy by pointing out that

(A) the expertise of those opposing the law is outstanding

(B) the lack of justification for the new law does not imply that those who drew it up were either inept or immoral

(C) the practical application of the new law will not entail indiscriminate budget cuts

(D) economic troubles present at the time of the New Deal were equal in severity to those that have led to the present law

(E) the fact that certain flawed programs or laws have improved the economy does not prove that every such program can do so


E is my pick.

[chidcguy]

Which of the following corrections of a figure appearing in the passage above, if it were the only correction that needed to be made, would yield a new calculation showing that even incomes below the median family income would enable families in Millington to afford Millington’s median-priced house?

(A) Millington’s total population was 45,000 people.

Everything else constant, some one with a income of 20K cannot afford the home. Pop has no relevance as it includes kids who do not earn.

(B) Millington’s median annual family income was $27,000

Everything else constant, some one with a income of < 27K (say 23k)possibly cannot afford the home.

(C) Millington’s median-priced house cost $80,000

Everything else constant, some one with a income of < 28k possibly cannot afford the home, esp when the median home price has gone up

(D) The rate at which people in Millington had to pay mortgage interest was only 10 percent.

Everything else constant, some one with a income of < 28k possibly can afford the home as their income might be some thing like 27.5K and the interest rate has dropped by almost 1 percentage point

(E) Families in Millington could only afford to pay up to 22 percent of their annual income for housing.

Everything else constant, some one with a income of < 28k possibly cannot afford the home, if the amount they can allocate for mortgage payment has gone down.

My pick D

[peter.p.81]

I'm going with E. No confidence on my answer. Can anyone tell OA?