We need to strengthen the argument which means we need to strengthen the conclusion (the petition)
The petition: "the permit should be granted because the shopping mall, if successful, will ultimately benefit the city by creating jobs in a place where the unemployment rate is slightly higher than the national average"
The petition is that IF the mall is successful, the city will benefit. To strengthen it, we need to prove that if the mall is successful, the city will ACTUALLY benefit. Whether the mall will be successful or not is not the point. Anything that strengthens the possibility that the mall will be successful is irrelevant to this particular argument.
The petition is telling you what will happen in case mall is successful. There is no point arguing whether the mall will be successful or not. We have to focus on what will happen if the mall IS successful.
(C) increases the possibility that the mall will be successful. It doesn't tell us how the success will benefit the city.
(D) tells you that the area has high unemployment so if the mall is successful, it increases the possibility that the city will benefit from the mall.
Hence answer is (D)[/quote]
@veeritasprepKarishma : Just agreeing on the point that "yes, there is an employment." how would you justify that mall is actually doing something about reducing unemployment. It is just restatement of the premises given.
Conclusion can only be strengthened if it indicates mall owner's plan to hire people for close-by area. The city’s largest percentage of unemployed people lives in the rural area where the proposed shopping mall would be built. => By this you only location of mall, which we already now. (now more specific location.)
The developer has already obtained verbal agreements from several retailers who plan to open stores in the future shopping mall. => C is not irrelevant. You want outside information that give you hints how it will impact employment. Shopping mall owner are making local tie-up that will help in generating employment. (although it's not very specific but still)
Pl advise[/quote]
"several retailers" does not imply local tie-ups. They could all be foreign brands. This option just increases the probability of the mall becoming successful. Again, as I said before, what you need to evaluate is what will happen if the mall is successful. You have to think about the case post success. You don't have to evaluate the probability of the mall becoming successful.
This is a conditional conclusion question which does trick many people. Check out this post:
https://www.gmatclub.com/forum/veritas-prep-resource-links-no-longer-available-399979.html#/2012/11 ... onclusion/On the other hand,
(D) The city’s largest percentage of unemployed people lives in the rural area where the proposed shopping mall would be built.
The mall, if successful, will ultimately benefit the city by creating jobs in a place where the unemployment rate is slightly higher than the national average
(D) makes sense. Jobs will be created in a place where unemployment rate is higher because the mall is coming up in a place where unemployment is higher. So it is likely that the city will benefit.[/quote]
Hi Karishma,
How can E not strengthen the developer's argument.I feel D is already stated in the premise.
if successful, will ultimately benefit the city by creating jobs in a place where the unemployment rate is slightly higher than the national average.
Option E states that the city will benefit as the sales tax revenue will directly go the city. Thus the councilor gets another notion to support building the mall.