Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
Politician: From the time our party took office almost four [#permalink]
22 Mar 2007, 07:05
0% (00:00) correct
0% (00:00) wrong based on 1 sessions
Politician: From the time our party took office almost four years ago the number of people unemployed city-wide increased by less than 20 percent. The opposition party controlled city government during the four preceding years, and the number of unemployed city residents rose by over 20 percent. Thus, due to our leadership, fewer people now find themselves among the ranks of the unemployed, whatever the opposition may claim.
The reasoning in the politicianâ€™s argument is most vulnerable to the criticism that
(A) the claims made by the opposition are simply dismissed without being specified
(B) no evidence has been offered to show that any decline in unemployment over the past four years was uniform throughout all areas of the city
(C) the issue of how much unemployment in the city is affected by seasonal fluctuations is ignored
(D) the evidence cited in support of the conclusion actually provides more support for the denial of the conclusion
(E) the possibility has not been addressed that any increase in the number of people employed is due to programs supported by the opposition party
The politician first says that the number of unemployed increased by under 20%. But then he tries to claim that the total number of unemployed decreased. Even if the percentage increase while he was in power was smaller than his predecessors, it's still an increase. The evidence he cites actually shows that more people now find themselves unemployed, not less.
Suppose there were 100 unemployed people when the opposition took office. The unemployment increased by 20% - so 120 unemployed people at end of the term.
Now when politican's party took office, unemployment increased by less than 20%. even if we assume it was 0%, the number of employed people would remain constant. The politician's argument does not give any concrete evidence that supports that inference that the unemployment decreased and that now there are fewer unemployed people.