Commissioner - need reeal help frm u guys !!

[luckylucky]

Commissioner: I have been incorrectly criticized for having made my decision on the power plant issue prematurely. I based my decision on the report prepared by the neighborhood association and although I have not studied it thoroughly, I am sure that the information it contains is accurate. Moreover, you may recall that when I received input from the neighborhood association on jail relocation, I agreed with its recommendation.
The commissioner’s argument is LEAST vulnerable to which one of the following criticism?
(A) It takes for granted that the association’s information is not distorted by bias.
(B) It draws a conclusion about the recommendations of the association from incomplete recollections.
(C) It takes for granted that the association’s report is the only direct evidence that needed to be considered.
(D) It hastily concludes that the association’s report is accurate without having studied it in detail.
(E) It takes for granted that agreeing with the association’s past recommendation helps justify agreeing with its current recommendation.

Frens,

How to deal such questions ?? Is there any Thumb rule ?? Please let me know your opinions ..I shall post the OA after some healthy discussion

[bmlaud]

I go with B ???? not sure though...

The argument says that last time on the jail relocation issue, the recommendations from the association were accepted.

[hypik21]

Commissioner: I have been incorrectly criticized for having made my decision on the power plant issue prematurely. I based my decision on the report prepared by the neighborhood association and although I have not studied it thoroughly, I am sure that the information it contains is accurate. Moreover, you may recall that when I received input from the neighborhood association on jail relocation, I agreed with its recommendation.
The commissioner’s argument is LEAST vulnerable to which one of the following criticism?
(A) It takes for granted that the association’s information is not distorted by bias.
(B) It draws a conclusion about the recommendations of the association from incomplete recollections.
(C) It takes for granted that the association’s report is the only direct evidence that needed to be considered.
(D) It hastily concludes that the association’s report is accurate without having studied it in detail.
(E) It takes for granted that agreeing with the association’s past recommendation helps justify agreeing with its current recommendation.

Frens,

How to deal such questions ?? Is there any Thumb rule ?? Please let me know your opinions ..I shall post the OA after some healthy discussion

[hypik21]

IMO A...it does not say anything about bias and we are looking for the criticism which will the weakest or least vunerable toward the comm's argument...B is a choice i was iffy on, but his argument talks about not studying the report in detail...

[srn]

I guess it s B. tough one

[iamcste]

A

Least vulnerable. Others are more vulnerable criticism IMO

[luckylucky]

Frens,

What i really want to understand is how these options are least vulnerable to CRITICISM?

I want each and every statment to be explained in terms of vulnerability to criticism and the specific answer choice as to why it is least vulnerable?

Expecting a GMAT instructor to pitch in and clarify us.

-Lucky

[Shivani Varma]

IMO it is D

Q) which of the assumptions will not really hurt what the comminsioner is saying severely

He has been majorly criticized for making the decision prematurely.So what he is mainly trying to say is that the association is correct even though he has not gone through it , The evidence about the association past record which is not very convincing as it seems to have no connection.

1.Severly damages the commisioners Argument
2.Severly damages the commisioners Argument
3.Severly damages the commisioners Argument
4.the fact that he has already mentioned he has not read it, states the same point , so I feel that this is the Answer, since it reintroduces the same information . It is not severly damaging the conclusion.
5.Severely damages since it attacks the faulty unconvicing eveidence that has been provided

What is the OA?

[4meonly]

I am also with B

Stumulus does not mentions that decision is based on "incomplete recollections"

LSAT ))

[luckylucky]

Guys,

The OA is B but i am expecting more xplanations on this question.
please contribute my dear friends.

Good effort shivani ...that is the explanation that i wud love to read

-lucky

[4meonly]

I think taht this qustion is hard to read but easy to answer. I would like to mention once again that answer B is simply irrelevant because stumulus does not mention any info about "incomplete recollections".
Other answers more or less undermine the reasoning but B is simply irrelevant

[Shivani Varma]

I was wrong though... Damn!!!Anyway learnt a little something sooo all good

[graem83d]

I still feel B should be the answer

[atrayee345]

) "Incomplete recollections" is not mentioned throughout the passage. It is mentioned that the commissioner didn't study it thoroughly but nowhere it has been said that what he studied was incomplete. Hence, B is the answer.