|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 715
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
69
[0], given: 0
|
Commissioner: Budget forecasters project a revenue shortfall [#permalink]
 08 Apr 2008, 02:09
Question Stats:
49% (01:51) correct
50% (00:53) wrong based on 22 sessions
Commissioner: Budget forecasters project a revenue shortfall of a billion dollars in the coming fiscal year. Since there is no feasible way to increase the available funds, our only choice is to decrease expenditures. The plan before you outlines feasible cuts that would yield savings of a billion dollars over the coming fiscal year. We will be able to solve the problem we face, therefore, only if we adopt this plan. This reasoning in the commissioner's argument is flawed because this argument (A) relies on information that is far from certain (B) confuses being an adequate solution with being a required solution (C) inappropriately relies on the opinions of experts (D) inappropriately employs language that is vague (E) takes for granted that there is no way to increase available funds
_________________
Persistence+Patience+Persistence+Patience=G...O...A...L
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CEO
Joined: 17 May 2007
Posts: 2998
Followers: 48
Kudos [?]:
390
[0], given: 210
|
Re: CR 30: Commisioner [#permalink]
08 Apr 2008, 06:02
B for me. Will explain if this is the OA.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 28 Sep 2007
Posts: 215
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
17
[0], given: 0
|
Re: CR 30: Commisioner [#permalink]
08 Apr 2008, 11:04
E is the only one that makes sense to me. They are ruling out all factors that there can be anyway to increase funds. I have no idea though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 02 Dec 2007
Posts: 461
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
19
[0], given: 6
|
Re: CR 30: Commisioner [#permalink]
08 Apr 2008, 11:45
B for me
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 28 Sep 2007
Posts: 215
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
17
[0], given: 0
|
Re: CR 30: Commisioner [#permalink]
09 Apr 2008, 14:18
OA prassanar?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 27 Mar 2008
Posts: 99
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
10
[0], given: 0
|
Re: CR 30: Commisioner [#permalink]
09 Apr 2008, 19:32
I say B.
_________________
MBA Blog: University of Minnesota Carlson School of Management- http://unconventionalapplicant.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
|
|
|
SVP
Joined: 04 May 2006
Posts: 1946
Schools: CBS, Kellogg
Followers: 10
Kudos [?]:
168
[0], given: 1
|
Re: CR 30: Commisioner [#permalink]
09 Apr 2008, 22:10
jingy77 wrote: E is the only one that makes sense to me. They are ruling out all factors that there can be anyway to increase funds. I have no idea though. Agree with you, E Because the argument "E) takes for granted that there is no way to increase available funds", " This reasoning in the commissioner's argument is flawed". We do not must find the flaw of the argument.
_________________
Find out what's new at GMAT Club - latest features and updates
|
|
|
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 10 Jun 2007
Posts: 1478
Followers: 5
Kudos [?]:
70
[0], given: 0
|
Re: CR 30: Commisioner [#permalink]
09 Apr 2008, 22:17
i'm with the B gang
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 09 Apr 2008
Posts: 1
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 0
|
Re: CR 30: Commisioner [#permalink]
09 Apr 2008, 22:18
E
|
|
|
|
|
|
CEO
Joined: 17 May 2007
Posts: 2998
Followers: 48
Kudos [?]:
390
[0], given: 210
|
Re: CR 30: Commisioner [#permalink]
09 Apr 2008, 22:30
hahah showdown time B vs E ... cmon prasanna we need the OA.
|
|
|
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 22 Oct 2006
Posts: 1447
Schools: Chicago Booth '11
Followers: 7
Kudos [?]:
136
[0], given: 12
|
Re: CR 30: Commisioner [#permalink]
10 Apr 2008, 08:36
im joining th B gang
The problem or flaw with the argument is that he is saying
We will be able to solve the problem we face, therefore, only if we adopt this plan.
So he is ruling out every other option. Why though? What in the argument states that another plan couldn't work either? Why is his plan the only one to solve the problem?
What if there were other ways to reduce expenditures in another plan?
Therefore in B, he is confusing what could be an adequate solution to a required solution (ONLY is key here)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 14 Mar 2008
Posts: 136
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
8
[0], given: 0
|
Re: CR 30: Commisioner [#permalink]
10 Apr 2008, 09:33
OA is B - found on another thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 30 May 2009
Posts: 28
Schools: Haas, Darden, Booth, LBS, Insead and IMD
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
2
[1] , given: 1
|
Re: CR 30: Commisioner [#permalink]
06 Jun 2009, 05:30
1
This post received
KUDOS
terp26 wrote: im joining th B gang
The problem or flaw with the argument is that he is saying
We will be able to solve the problem we face, therefore, only if we adopt this plan.
So he is ruling out every other option. Why though? What in the argument states that another plan couldn't work either? Why is his plan the only one to solve the problem?
What if there were other ways to reduce expenditures in another plan?
Therefore in B, he is confusing what could be an adequate solution to a required solution (ONLY is key here) Sound reasoning. I used the same.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CR Forum Moderator
Joined: 02 Oct 2009
Posts: 470
Location: Bangalore,India
WE 1: 4yrs in IT Industry
Followers: 16
Kudos [?]:
66
[0], given: 268
|
Re: CR 30: Commisioner [#permalink]
26 Mar 2010, 05:14
good explanation terp
_________________
One Final Try.......
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 01 Feb 2010
Posts: 275
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
30
[0], given: 2
|
Re: CR 30: Commisioner [#permalink]
26 Mar 2010, 06:50
prasannar wrote: Commissioner: Budget forecasters project a revenue shortfall of a billion dollars in the coming fiscal year. Since there is no feasible way to increase the available funds, our only choice is to decrease expenditures. The plan before you outlines feasible cuts that would yield savings of a billion dollars over the coming fiscal year. We will be able to solve the problem we face, therefore, only if we adopt this plan. This reasoning in the commissioner's argument is flawed because this argument (A) relies on information that is far from certain (B) confuses being an adequate solution with being a required solution (C) inappropriately relies on the opinions of experts (D) inappropriately employs language that is vague (E) takes for granted that there is no way to increase available funds Confusing. I would still go with E.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 05 Jan 2010
Posts: 22
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
8
[1] , given: 4
|
Re: CR 30: Commisioner [#permalink]
26 Mar 2010, 08:38
1
This post received
KUDOS
Is this really how this passage is written in the OG? Terrible! I had to read it multiple times to figure out what was being said and who was being addressed. I can't think rule of a grammar rule that allows you to place the speaker in front of a passage with a colon and then followup it up with a string of dialogue that does not have quotations or indicators of who the speaker is addressing; except maybe in a script.
that aside, I picked B
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 05 Mar 2010
Posts: 220
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
15
[0], given: 8
|
Re: CR 30: Commisioner [#permalink]
26 Mar 2010, 12:29
prasannar wrote: Commissioner: Budget forecasters project a revenue shortfall of a billion dollars in the coming fiscal year. Since there is no feasible way to increase the available funds, our only choice is to decrease expenditures. The plan before you outlines feasible cuts that would yield savings of a billion dollars over the coming fiscal year. We will be able to solve the problem we face, therefore, only if we adopt this plan. This reasoning in the commissioner's argument is flawed because this argument (A) relies on information that is far from certain (B) confuses being an adequate solution with being a required solution (C) inappropriately relies on the opinions of experts (D) inappropriately employs language that is vague (E) takes for granted that there is no way to increase available funds I will go with B it is the only option which talks about the solution .........whether adequate or required
_________________
Success is my Destiny
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 14 Apr 2010
Posts: 241
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
7
[0], given: 1
|
Re: CR 30: Commisioner [#permalink]
22 Jul 2010, 09:06
what is wrong with E>?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Posts: 172
Followers: 3
Kudos [?]:
18
[0], given: 1
|
Re: CR 30: Commisioner [#permalink]
23 Jul 2010, 05:57
|
|
|
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Posts: 1481
Schools: Wharton (R2 - submitted); HBS (R2 - submitted); IIMA (admitted for 1 year PGPX)
Followers: 9
Kudos [?]:
59
[2] , given: 13
|
Re: CR 30: Commisioner [#permalink]
02 Aug 2010, 08:36
2
This post received
KUDOS
E is something which is explicitly stated in the passage - the commissioner says there is no way to increase available funds. The question asks us to find a flaw in this reasoning. If we choose E - we are simply restating the commissoner's argument. B points the flaw by highlighting where the problem is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: CR 30: Commisioner
[#permalink]
02 Aug 2010, 08:36
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
metallicafan, rajeevrks27, souvik101990, PTK, MacFauz, noboru, kissthegmat, carcass, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, doe007, Vercules, Legendaddy, tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Marcab, Narenn
|
close
