Prior to 1971, the United States was on various forms of a gold standa

I do not want to nitpick. But what choice D implies is that the data set provides information about the growth in the difference between the revenues and expenditures over the last 100 years. Implied in that is we would be looking at a data set which shows the growing gap between revenue and expenditure over the last 100 years. There are 4 interpretations we can make about a data set which offers to provide that information:

1) The revenue has been increasing and the expenditure has been more or less the same
2) The expenditure has been increasing and the revenue has been more or less the same
3) The revenue is reducing and the expenditure is increasing
4) The expenditure is reducing and the revenue is increasing.

We do not know which of these the data set portrays. Above all this, each of the possibility could occur both before 1971 and after 1971. So what differentiates the period before 1971 from the period after 1971? To make matters worse, we can have possibility 1 from 1960-70, possibility 3 from 1970-80 etc etc occurring in a mixed way over the 100 year period.

I am assuming the above 4 possibilities because we do not know whether the revenue was in excess or the expenditure was in excess. If revenue became more and more in excess it actually undermines the author's argument that the period before 1971 marked a period of better economy.

I do not want to nitpick. But what choice D implies is that the data set provides information about the growth in the difference between the revenues and expenditures over the last 100 years. Implied in that is we would be looking at a data set which shows the growing gap between revenue and expenditure over the last 100 years. There are 4 interpretations we can make about a data set which offers to provide that information:

1) The revenue has been increasing and the expenditure has been more or less the same
2) The expenditure has been increasing and the revenue has been more or less the same
3) The revenue is reducing and the expenditure is increasing
4) The expenditure is reducing and the revenue is increasing.

We do not know which of these the data set portrays. Above all this, each of the possibility could occur both before 1971 and after 1971. So what differentiates the period before 1971 from the period after 1971? To make matters worse, we can have possibility 1 from 1960-70, possibility 3 from 1970-80 etc etc occurring in a mixed way over the 100 year period.

I am assuming the above 4 possibilities because we do not know whether the revenue was in excess or the expenditure was in excess. If revenue became more and more in excess it actually undermines the author's argument that the period before 1971 marked a period of better economy.[/quote]


Hi

Which of the following data sets can be best used by the author of the above argument to further his conclusion?

Pleas read the question carefully. We are just reqd to furnish an option to the author that helps him best. If it were that we have to assess than yes ....four of them cannot be answered. But its author who has to decide. we have to provide him a line for thinking.

So i think Sarvana you have helped yourself........
Well having said that, lets wait for the final answer...All reasoning falls apart if the OA will be C. As you had experienced in one of the last cr polls of e gmat.

Consider Kudos if my post helps

Archit

Dear Archit,

My whole point has been as you could see it underlined in my last post, is that the any possible data set mentioned in choice D cannot set apart the two periods.

I would like to start with a clarification on one of my previous posts. When choice D talks about the growing gap between the revenue and expenditure, it can be in only one direction for the difference between the revenue and the expenditure throughout the last 100 years. That is the difference if positive is always getting more positive and if negative is always getting more negative. That is how the gap can grow. So with this clarification, now if we assume that if the difference was positive , how are we to say in the case of either that pre 71 was better than post 71? For example, we can say that if revenue was increasing and/or expenditure decreasing throughout the 100 years, it undermines the author's argument that the period of gold standard saw a better economy. Since the revenue and expenditure would have always been in that direction, the author on seeing the data set would not be able to say which period was better and so cannot further his conclusion. Similar reasoning holds for the reverse case.

Kindly read the underlined sentence above as: "for the difference between revenue and expenditure". I have made the necessary corrections in my previous post.

That is,

revenue grows, expenditure reduces or
revenue reduces, expenditure reduces even less or
expenditure grows , revenue reduces or
expenditure reduces and revenue reduces even less

Initialy I went with D, then after reading the discussion I returned back and I will keep A and D as contender and for some reason D weighs more...My reasoning as below




I can call it a background premisePrior to 1971, the United States was on various forms of a gold standard through which the value of the dollar was backed by gold reserves and paper money could be redeemed for gold on demand. Since 1971, the United States dollar has been a fiat currency backed by "full faith and credit” of the government and not backed by, valued in, or convertible into gold.

Main PremiseA gold standard restricts the ability of government to print money at will and to spend more than it earns in tax revenue.

Additional Premise Besides, the economy has historically performed best under a gold standard.


Main Conclusion Therefore, for reasons above, the voters should vote for a party that backs the return of the gold standard in the country.

The author says voters should vote for a party that backs the return of gold standard for two reasons
1) because gold standard restricts government ability to print money at will and to spend more than what it earns
2) the economy has historically performed best under a gold standard

There is an unstated assumption that policies post 1971 doesn't support the above 2....what will he require to support this conclusion?? certainly
the facts with respect to the above 2 points of post 1971..A "Major economic indicators of United States since 1980" will touch and reaffirm the additional premise. D will touch and reaffirm the main premise.......They both can be the answers but since D touches the crux of the argument that is the main premise ....I will go with D only

As for C, I guess we already know that government has printed money in proportion with its earning (can be GDP here), since its a very character of the gold standard and it was followed by the country....This point doesn't add anything

Which of the following data sets can be best used by the author of the above argument to further his conclusion?

A. Major economic indicators of United States since 1980
B. Expenditure on education and healthcare from 1960 to 2000
C. Money printed by the government as proportion of the Gross Domestic Product from 1950 to 1970
D. Growth in the difference between the revenue and expenditure figures for the government for the last 100 years beginning from 1901.
E. Economic growth in the country in 1971 and in 1972.

OA and OE will be posted after some initial discussion!

-Chiranjeev[/quote]

I welcome any criticism for my reasoning

Hi All,

Thank you for participating in this interesting and lively discussion.

Official answer and explanation have been posted (in the second post reserved for this purpose).

I would suggest everyone to have a look at the official explanation even if they marked the correct option. Probably, this will help.

Thanks
Chiranjeev

Hi Neha,

I thought I would respond to this.

Your doubt is valid that we cannot be sure that any changes in data in option D (post and pre era periods) were only due to the different between gold standard currency and fiat currency.

However, this doubt applies even to option C. Do you think money printed by government could only be impacted by one factor? Can't there be other factors like increased number of welfare schemes or increased expenditure or any other factor? I understand that the ability to print money would be limited by the amount of gold the government has but that is the only upper limit. There is a lot of scope of movements below that.

Besides, as explained in OE, even if data in option C is affected by only one parameter, this cannot be strengthen the author's argument because the basis of the author's argument is the comparison between gold standard era and fiat currency era. This comparsion cannot be done using data set in option C.

Hope this helps

Let me know if I need to further explain my case.

Thanks,
Chiranjeev

Dear Chiranjeev,

I would like to comment on the above points.

1. The first two premises are not independent of each other though as you say the grammatical structure suggests that. The reason is this: Restricting the ability to spend money cannot be achieved if restriction on the ability to print money at will is not achieved.

So if premise 2 is to be achieved premise 1 has to be achieved and so is dependent on it.

In my opinion, restricting the ability to print money at will is the major premise of the author and the data set mentioned in choice C can help in finding out whether that was indeed accomplished.

2.The third premise is an additional one and is not the major premise as is suggested by the use of the word "besides".

3. Choice D is equivalent to saying "data set showing the growth in the difference between revenue and expenditure for each of the last 100 years If the gap between the revenue and expenditure is ever widening, how would that be helpful to the author in furthering his conclusion?

Kudos for the first one who answered correct this tough question?

Nexus 4 with Tapatalk 2

Yup. You deserve it

- Chiranjeev

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.