People who have political power tend to see new technologies

Responding to a pm:

Politically powerful people consider new tech helpful but new ethical args threatening.
Conclusion: So tech creators benefit while ethics creators suffer. (that is the gist using simpler words)

We need to strengthen this:

(A) Those who offer new ways of justifying current political power often reap the benefits of their own innovations.

'Justifying' current political power is irrelevant to our argument.

(B) Politically powerful people tend to reward those who they believe are useful to them and to punish those who they believe are a threat.

The argument doesn't say how the belief system of politically powerful people actually impacts. How do we establish that tech creators benefit while ethics creators suffer? Just because politically powerful people consider new tech useful but new ethics threatening, how does that convert into benefit for tech creators and suffering for ethics creators? The options tells us what politically powerful people take action as per their belief system. They reward what they consider beneficial and punish what they consider a threat. Then it helps say that tech creators benefit and ethics creators suffer.

(C) Ethical inventiveness and technical ingenuity are never possessed by the same individuals

It doesn't matter either way. Technical ingenuity will bring benefit only when the people possessing it apply it and same goes for ethical inventiveness. Even if same individual possesses both, when this individual shows tech ingenuity, he benefits and when he shows ethical inventiveness, he suffers.

(D) New technologies are often used by people who strive to defeat those who currently have political power.

People who strive to defeat those with political power are irrelevant.

(E) Many people who possess ethical inventiveness conceal their novel ethical arguments for fear of retribution by the politically powerful.

The argument deals with new tech and ethical arguments so we are concerned with those who apply their ingenuity and inventiveness. Those who conceal are irrelevant.

Answer (B)

I picked B, but had a hard time eliminating E.

We need to support that Politics benefit tech geeks, and bring pain to ethical inventive people. B clearly states that politicians can influence these people.

A is saying that ethical inventive people benefits too. This actually weakens.
C is irrelevant. It is nice to know, but it doesn't support the argument at all.
D is saying that tech geeks is not beneficial to politicians; thus, weakens the argument.

I didn't pick E because if those people conceal their novelty, then politicians cannot influence them; therefore, doesn't relate well to the argument.

Correct me If i am wrong....

I struggled between (B) and (C), but here is why (C) is wrong.

People who have political power tend to see new technologies as a means of extending or protecting their power, whereas they generally see new ethical arguments and ideas as a threat to it. Therefore, technical ingenuity usually brings benefits to those who have this ingenuity, whereas ethical inventiveness brings only pain to those who have this inventiveness.

(C) Ethical inventiveness and technical ingenuity are never possessed by the same individuals. -- The argument leaves room that someone can have both and be punished for it. If the argument said 'only brings' instead of 'usually brings', then this answer would be 100% correct.

This question is not at all like a real GMAT CR question (though it is similar to some LSAT problems). For one thing, GMAT CR questions don't include these types of sweeping, abstract and unverifiable claims ("People who have political power tend to see new technologies as a means of extending or protecting their power"). They instead include concrete scientific or historical facts.

But more importantly, real GMAT CR questions that ask you to strengthen an argument typically actually present an argument. The stem here is not an argument at all; there is no relationship between the first sentence and the second. The first talks about what "people who have power" think, while the conclusion talks about what people who have "technical ingenuity" and "ethical inventiveness" (I can't even guess what that phrase could mean) experience. Those aren't the same people, so there's no connection between the people mentioned in the first sentence and those in the second. The argument, as written, is a pure non sequitur. It only becomes an argument at all if we can connect the beliefs of those with power to the experiences of those with technical or ethical ingenuity. Only answer B does that, so it's the right answer.

(B) strenghens the conclusion by pointing out that political power benefits from technology and will therefore reward it, while it will punish ethical inventiveness!

cheers

What's wrong with C? I see why b is prob correct but I thought C adds an assumption that could enhance argument.

I'd pick C. B sounds more like a conclusion than an assumption. What's OA?

I picked B too though E got me thinking for a while.

The point is - technical inventiveness helps people in power and ethical inventiveness is a threat to the "power". It's logical to assume that therefore the politcal people would never "like" ethical inventiveness and the people possessing the same.

B strengthens this thought process.

B clearly strengthens the argument

i pick B...Whats the answer....

I think it's E. I think B is irrelevant. Whether the politically powerful people reward other people does not address the point of whether technical ingenuity will provide the benefit and whether ethical inventiveness will provide pain or threat to the politicians.

I think it is B. By showing that people are rewarded for what they believe are useful to them and punish people who believe are a threat, it provides the basis for the conclusion that technical ingenuity is beneficial and ethical inventivess only brings pain. otherwise, just because they [people with political power] think that does not automatically mean that technical ingenuity is beneficial and ethical inventiveness is not.

Please check this URL: https://www.urch.com/forums/showthread.p ... R-Question , It states C is the answer and B is an assumption..

The most problemsome issue in Strengthen and assumption questions is, we will find 2 options, 1 which strenthens and other which will be an assumption...

In assumption questions, Strenghtening options on negation will pull down the conclusion as well. On strenthening questions, assumption options will drive us mad on making a choice.. So we have to differentiate between the two somehow.. But how?

Please share your valuble inputs.

How to eliminte C? On NEGATING A,same thing cannot bring pain as well as be beneficial.

People who have political power tend to see new technologies as a means of extending or protecting their power, whereas they generally see new ethical arguments and ideas as a threat to it. Therefore, technical ingenuity usually brings benefits to those who have this ingenuity, whereas ethical inventiveness brings only pain to those who have this inventiveness.

Which one of the following statements, if true, most strengthens the argument?

(A) Those who offer new ways of justifying current political power often reap the benefits of their own innovations.

(B) Politically powerful people tend to reward those who they believe are useful to them and to punish those who they believe are a threat.

(C) Ethical inventiveness and technical ingenuity are never possessed by the same individuals

(D) New technologies are often used by people who strive to defeat those who currently have political power.

(E) Many people who possess ethical inventiveness conceal their novel ethical arguments for fear of retribution by the politically powerful.



Premise 1 ---People who have political power tend to see new technologies as a means of extending or protecting their power
premise 2---- they generally see new ethical arguments and ideas as a threat to it.

conclusion---- Therefore, technical ingenuity usually brings benefits to those who have this ingenuity, whereas ethical inventiveness brings only pain to those who have this inventiveness.

therefore -------conclusion marker

Objective --- to find the sentence, which strengthen the conclusion



(A) Those who offer new ways of justifying current political power often reap the benefits of their own innovations.


the sentence says that it is not politician that reap the benefits ----wrong, actually it is weakening

(B) Politically powerful people tend to reward those who they believe are useful to them and to punish those who they believe are a threat.

correct


(C) Ethical inventiveness and technical ingenuity are never possessed by the same individuals


Irrelevant , strong sentence .

(D) New technologies are often used by people who strive to defeat those who currently have political power.

the sentence is weakling

(E) Many people who possess ethical inventiveness conceal their novel ethical arguments for fear of retribution by the politically powerful.

look this part of the conclusion ---whereas ethical inventiveness brings only pain to those who have this inventiveness -----that statement is partial conclusion .


Answer B