aditya8062 wrote:
hi mike
i have a question here
what exactly is the argument here? is it that the surgery clearly has a powerful rehabilitative effect OR is it Putting these moral issues aside, however, the surgery clearly has a powerful rehabilitative effect?
i am asking this because if the argument is about whether the surgery clearly has a powerful rehabilitative effect then i can realize as why E is an answer; however, if the argument is Putting these moral issues aside, however, the surgery clearly has a powerful rehabilitative effect then shouldn't we be asking as why in first place the writer is putting the moral issues aside. we can argue that it is not right to keep the moral issues aside and support some kind of a program on the basis that it has some positive effects?
Dear
aditya8062,
My friend, this question is answered by a careful reading of the prompt. The key phrase is . . .
Putting these moral issues aside, Think about what this means. If the author puts something aside, that is a way of saying --- "
I don't really consider that important; it's not as important as what I am going to say next."
It's as if the author says, "
that's not important; here, instead, is my conclusion." If the author's argument is about what is or isn't important, and makes assertions concerning that, then we might be in a position to question what the author thinks is important. Here, though, the author say something is not important, and then draws a conclusion about something else.
In the bigger world, in real life, when presented with such an argument, we may well say, "
Wait a moment! Moral concerns can't be dismissed like that!" That would be a sort of
meta-objection: not an objection to the meat of the argument itself, but backing up and questioning the priorities behind the argument, the value-system from which the argument proceeds. We might do that in real life, but in the more limited context of the GMAT CR, that's not what we are doing. It's much more limited: is this argument, as presented, logical or not? We are only focused on the meat of the argument itself.
Does this make sense?
Mike