|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 29 Jul 2006
Posts: 877
Followers: 3
Kudos [?]:
10
[0], given: 0
|
Politician: From the time our party took office almost four [#permalink]
 22 Mar 2007, 08:05
Question Stats:
0% (00:00) correct
 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 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 politician’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
Please give reasons for ur choices...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 06 Feb 2007
Posts: 1024
Followers: 16
Kudos [?]:
75
[0], given: 0
|
I'd go for E. The previous government might have implemented policies that in long term decreased the unemployment figures.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 01 Mar 2005
Posts: 56
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
2
[0], given: 0
|
I think the answer is D.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 22 Feb 2007
Posts: 166
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
5
[0], given: 0
|
I think it D.
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.
Hence (D)
|
|
|
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 06 Feb 2007
Posts: 1024
Followers: 16
Kudos [?]:
75
[0], given: 0
|
You guys are right. The answer has to be D.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 07 Feb 2007
Posts: 212
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
6
[0], given: 0
|
Four year ago, the rate of unemplyment is 20%, and now 20%+10%=30%.
(D) the evidence cited in support of the conclusion actually provides more support for the denial of the conclusion
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 29 Jul 2006
Posts: 877
Followers: 3
Kudos [?]:
10
[0], given: 0
|
You guys are the best...The OA is D indeed.
This is a good example of the percentage trap(I got caught in it).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
metallicafan, rajeevrks27, souvik101990, PTK, MacFauz, noboru, kissthegmat, carcass, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, doe007, Vercules, Legendaddy, tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Marcab, Narenn
|
close
