Find all School-related info fast with the new School-Specific MBA Forum

 It is currently 29 Jun 2015, 21:50

### GMAT Club Daily Prep

#### Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# Press secretary: Our critics claim that the President's

Author Message
TAGS:
Senior Manager
Joined: 17 Dec 2012
Posts: 395
Location: India
Followers: 20

Kudos [?]: 251 [1] , given: 10

Re: Press secretary: Our critics claim that the President's [#permalink]  29 Jan 2013, 04:43
1
KUDOS
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
pb_india wrote:
Press secretary: Our critics claim that the President's recent highway project cancellations demonstrate a vindictive desire to punish legislative districts controlled by opposition parties. They offer as evidence the fact that 90% of the projects cancelled were in such districts. But all of the cancelled projects had been identified as wasteful in a report written by respected nonpartisan auditors. So the President's choice was clearly motivated by sound budgetary policy, not partisan politics.
Which of the following is an assumption on which the press secretary's argument depends?
A. Canceling highway projects was not the only way for the President to punish legislative districts controlled by opposition parties.
B. The scheduled highway projects identified as wasteful in the report were not mostly projects in districts controlled by the President's party.
C. The number of projects cancelled was a significant proportion of all the highway projects that were to be undertaken by the government in the near future.
D. Nonpartisan auditors were President's friends.
E. Reports by nonpartisan auditors are not generally regarded by the opposition parties as a source of objective assessment of government projects.

Premise: All of the projects cancelled by the president had been identified as wasteful in a report written by respected nonpartisan auditors.
Conclusion:the President's choice was clearly motivated by sound budgetary policy, not partisan politics.

We need to look for an assumption that makes the conclusion definitely follow from the premise. What the premise says is that the cancelled projects have been identified as wasteful. But from this, the conclusion does not definitely follow. This is because even though all the cancelled projects have been identified as wasteful it does not mean that all the wasteful projects have been cancelled. Choice B fills that gap as it says that most of the wasteful projects are not in districts controlled by the president's party. Because if it were, then 90% of the cancelled projects being in opposition controlled districts, the president would be considered partisan.
_________________

Srinivasan Vaidyaraman
Sravna Test Prep
http://www.sravna.com

Classroom Courses in Chennai
Free Online Material

Director
Joined: 08 Jun 2010
Posts: 643
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 45 [0], given: 114

Re: Press secretary: Our critics claim that the President's [#permalink]  19 Feb 2013, 02:41
one thing that makes this questin hard is that the oa B is worded in a way which makes B different from the assumption we prethink.

so
hard to prethink
oa is much different from what we prethink

there are 2 points which make the question hard. and we have to admit that this questin is still basic.
Intern
Joined: 20 Jun 2013
Posts: 2
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 2

Re: Press secretary: Our critics claim that the President's [#permalink]  22 Jul 2013, 00:19
I am not able to understand how B is correct

B.The scheduled highway projects identified as wasteful in the report were not mostly projects in districts controlled by the President's party.
This means, the projects that got cancelled are from districts which are not ruled by president's party. If this is assumption, then it could be because of partisian politics.
Can anyone explain what I am missing here?
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 5678
Location: Pune, India
Followers: 1411

Kudos [?]: 7302 [0], given: 186

Re: Press secretary: Our critics claim that the President's [#permalink]  22 Jul 2013, 02:01
Expert's post
Ravi9535 wrote:
I am not able to understand how B is correct

B.The scheduled highway projects identified as wasteful in the report were not mostly projects in districts controlled by the President's party.
This means, the projects that got cancelled are from districts which are not ruled by president's party. If this is assumption, then it could be because of partisian politics.
Can anyone explain what I am missing here?

No. The statement in bold is given to you in the argument. You are given that the projects that got cancelled were mainly from oppositions' disticts. What we are assuming is that the projects identified by the report as wasteful were not mainly from the President's districts.
Out of the 10 projects cancelled, 9 are from oppositions' districts. All these 10 projects were identified as wasteful by non partisan auditors. We are assuming that non partisan auditors did not identify 20 other wasteful projects - all of which belonged to the President's party but were not cancelled. We need to assume this if we are to say that the President is motivated by sound budgetary policies.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
My Blog

Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for $199 Veritas Prep Reviews Intern Joined: 20 Apr 2014 Posts: 1 Followers: 0 Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 0 Re: Press secretary: Our critics claim that the President's [#permalink] 20 Apr 2014, 07:41 VeritasPrepKarishma wrote: thangvietnam wrote: hard one. I can not prethink an assumption before going to the answer choices. experts, pls, come in . how to do this? Pre-thinking an assumption can really help you stay on track and identify the correct answer quickly. There may be multiple assumptions but pre-thinking is useful in most cases because you understand the argument well before jumping into the options. Argument: There are districts controlled and the President and there are some controlled by the opposition parties. The President canceled some projects. 90% of those were located in the opposition party districts. So opposition has been crying foul. The secretary is defending the President. He says that all of these were identified as wasteful by non partisan auditors. Conclusion: the President's choice was clearly motivated by sound budgetary policy, not partisan politics. Now we have to think an assumption for this conclusion. Think of a political argument in which you are taking part. You have to assume that whatever the other person says is the truth. You have to put forward a counter point keeping that in mind. So the other person says, 'all of these were identified as wasteful by non partisan auditors.' The question that should come to your mind is: which other projects did the non partisan auditors identify as wasteful? Say, they identified 20 wasteful projects. 12 from the President's districts and 8 from the opposition's. What if the President chose all the projects to be canceled from the 8 wasteful projects of the opposition's districts? Everything said in the argument stays true but the conclusion becomes invalid. The President would have been motivated by partisan politics in that case. The assumption you are looking for: Not many of the projects identified as wasteful were from the President's districts. Hence (B) is your assumption. I'm still confused though. If the assumption was "many of the projects identified as wasteful were from the President's districts" instead of "NOT many of the projects identified as wasteful were from the President's districts", that would have been more explicit IMO. The projects that were deemed wasteful turning out to be from the president's district would've definitely proved the point that the president didn't have any political motivation behind the cancellation. However the OA (b) is stating that "not many were from the the president's district", which implies many projects that were cancelled was indeed from districts other than from the president's. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but somehow this assumption seems a bit weak to support the Scretary's claim. Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor Joined: 16 Oct 2010 Posts: 5678 Location: Pune, India Followers: 1411 Kudos [?]: 7302 [1] , given: 186 Re: Press secretary: Our critics claim that the President's [#permalink] 20 Apr 2014, 17:39 1 This post received KUDOS Expert's post freddiek wrote: VeritasPrepKarishma wrote: thangvietnam wrote: hard one. I can not prethink an assumption before going to the answer choices. experts, pls, come in . how to do this? Pre-thinking an assumption can really help you stay on track and identify the correct answer quickly. There may be multiple assumptions but pre-thinking is useful in most cases because you understand the argument well before jumping into the options. Argument: There are districts controlled and the President and there are some controlled by the opposition parties. The President canceled some projects. 90% of those were located in the opposition party districts. So opposition has been crying foul. The secretary is defending the President. He says that all of these were identified as wasteful by non partisan auditors. Conclusion: the President's choice was clearly motivated by sound budgetary policy, not partisan politics. Now we have to think an assumption for this conclusion. Think of a political argument in which you are taking part. You have to assume that whatever the other person says is the truth. You have to put forward a counter point keeping that in mind. So the other person says, 'all of these were identified as wasteful by non partisan auditors.' The question that should come to your mind is: which other projects did the non partisan auditors identify as wasteful? Say, they identified 20 wasteful projects. 12 from the President's districts and 8 from the opposition's. What if the President chose all the projects to be canceled from the 8 wasteful projects of the opposition's districts? Everything said in the argument stays true but the conclusion becomes invalid. The President would have been motivated by partisan politics in that case. The assumption you are looking for: Not many of the projects identified as wasteful were from the President's districts. Hence (B) is your assumption. I'm still confused though. If the assumption was "many of the projects identified as wasteful were from the President's districts" instead of "NOT many of the projects identified as wasteful were from the President's districts", that would have been more explicit IMO. The projects that were deemed wasteful turning out to be from the president's district would've definitely proved the point that the president didn't have any political motivation behind the cancellation. However the OA (b) is stating that "not many were from the the president's district", which implies many projects that were cancelled was indeed from districts other than from the president's. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but somehow this assumption seems a bit weak to support the Scretary's claim. What shows political vengeance on the part of the President? Cancellation of projects of opposition districts. The President claims that they were wasteful so there is no politics involved. The conclusion of the argument is "President is motivated by policy, not politics." What do we NEED to be true if we are to say that the President is motivated by policy only? Since most of the cancellations were from opposition districts, it would make sense only if most wasteful projects were from opposition districts only. We need this to be true (i.e. it is an assumption) to establish the conclusion that the President is not politically motivated. _________________ Karishma Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor My Blog Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for$199

Veritas Prep Reviews

Intern
Joined: 24 Nov 2013
Posts: 20
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 720 Q46 V42
GPA: 3.7
WE: Corporate Finance (Journalism and Publishing)
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 1

Re: Press secretary: Our critics claim that the President's [#permalink]  02 Aug 2014, 13:39
This one still makes no sense to me.

All we know about the auditors report is that 'ALL Canceled projects had been identified as wasteful'. We have no other insight into the scope of the report, other than that they have analyzed the canceled projects.

We also know that '90 Percent of Canceled Projects were in such Districts' - Partisan opposition districts.

Given these two pieces of information, the argument itself tells us pretty clearly the 'wasteful projects' were NOT mostly in districts controlled by the presidents party - 90% of them were in the opposing party's districts. I fail to see how restating this is necessary for the argument, as I don't consider the point to be a weak link in the argument.

I do, however, see the validity of the audit itself as being a potential weak link. I think this is just a poor question, not a hard one.
Senior Manager
Joined: 28 Apr 2014
Posts: 291
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 26 [0], given: 46

Re: Press secretary: Our critics claim that the President's [#permalink]  02 Aug 2014, 20:37
christoph wrote:
IMO its B)...negate B) => "The scheduled highway projects identified as wasteful in the report were mostly projects in districts controlled by the President's party". so the author was not driven by sound budgetary policy, but by the fact that most of the wastefult projects are in his districts. so he is partisan.

...negate E) "Reports by nonpartisan auditors are generally regarded by the opposition parties as a source of objective assessment of government projects". when even the oppositon thinks that this report is objective, then it should be fine to conclude that the president is not partisan but just a politician who is concerned about the economy.

Is negating B , really proving that ?
Manager
Joined: 03 Jul 2012
Posts: 139
GMAT 1: 710 Q50 V36
GPA: 3.9
WE: Programming (Computer Software)
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 47 [0], given: 16

Re: Press secretary: Our critics claim that the President's [#permalink]  14 Aug 2014, 07:30
pb_india wrote:
Press secretary: Our critics claim that the President's recent highway project cancellations demonstrate a vindictive desire to punish legislative districts controlled by opposition parties. They offer as evidence the fact that 90% of the projects cancelled were in such districts. But all of the cancelled projects had been identified as wasteful in a report written by respected nonpartisan auditors. So the President's choice was clearly motivated by sound budgetary policy, not partisan politics.
Which of the following is an assumption on which the press secretary's argument depends?
A. Canceling highway projects was not the only way for the President to punish legislative districts controlled by opposition parties.
B. The scheduled highway projects identified as wasteful in the report were not mostly projects in districts controlled by the President's party.
C. The number of projects cancelled was a significant proportion of all the highway projects that were to be undertaken by the government in the near future.
D. Nonpartisan auditors were President's friends.
E. Reports by nonpartisan auditors are not generally regarded by the opposition parties as a source of objective assessment of government projects.

I think there's a mistake in the question. I have highlighted it in the bold part. That costed me the answer.
Manager
Joined: 10 Mar 2013
Posts: 231
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 31 [0], given: 2035

Re: Press secretary: Our critics claim that the President's [#permalink]  14 Aug 2014, 20:18
VeritasPrepKarishma wrote:
freddiek wrote:
VeritasPrepKarishma wrote:

Pre-thinking an assumption can really help you stay on track and identify the correct answer quickly. There may be multiple assumptions but pre-thinking is useful in most cases because you understand the argument well before jumping into the options.

Argument:
There are districts controlled and the President and there are some controlled by the opposition parties. The President canceled some projects. 90% of those were located in the opposition party districts. So opposition has been crying foul. The secretary is defending the President. He says that all of these were identified as wasteful by non partisan auditors.
Conclusion: the President's choice was clearly motivated by sound budgetary policy, not partisan politics.

Now we have to think an assumption for this conclusion.

Think of a political argument in which you are taking part. You have to assume that whatever the other person says is the truth. You have to put forward a counter point keeping that in mind. So the other person says, 'all of these were identified as wasteful by non partisan auditors.'
The question that should come to your mind is: which other projects did the non partisan auditors identify as wasteful? Say, they identified 20 wasteful projects. 12 from the President's districts and 8 from the opposition's. What if the President chose all the projects to be canceled from the 8 wasteful projects of the opposition's districts? Everything said in the argument stays true but the conclusion becomes invalid. The President would have been motivated by partisan politics in that case.
The assumption you are looking for: Not many of the projects identified as wasteful were from the President's districts.

I'm still confused though.
If the assumption was "many of the projects identified as wasteful were from the President's districts" instead of "NOT many of the projects identified as wasteful were from the President's districts", that would have been more explicit IMO. The projects that were deemed wasteful turning out to be from the president's district would've definitely proved the point that the president didn't have any political motivation behind the cancellation.

However the OA (b) is stating that "not many were from the the president's district", which implies many projects that were cancelled was indeed from districts other than from the president's. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but somehow this assumption seems a bit weak to support the Scretary's claim.

What shows political vengeance on the part of the President? Cancellation of projects of opposition districts.
The President claims that they were wasteful so there is no politics involved.
The conclusion of the argument is "President is motivated by policy, not politics."

What do we NEED to be true if we are to say that the President is motivated by policy only? Since most of the cancellations were from opposition districts, it would make sense only if most wasteful projects were from opposition districts only. We need this to be true (i.e. it is an assumption) to establish the conclusion that the President is not politically motivated.

Thanks! I finally understand this one after reading the explanation several times. Let me whether I can explain it well.

The premise states that 90% of the cancelled projects were from the opponents' districts and that ALL of the cancelled projects were wasteful. For the President to be fair, we would have to show that he did not choose to ignore wasteful projects from his party's districts. If a sizable proportion of wasteful projects were from his party's districts and they were not cancelled, he would be biased. B clearly defends against this possibility.
Intern
Joined: 11 Aug 2014
Posts: 10
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 2

Re: Press secretary: Our critics claim that the President's [#permalink]  11 Sep 2014, 08:38
can anyone explain why A option is not correct.
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 5678
Location: Pune, India
Followers: 1411

Kudos [?]: 7302 [0], given: 186

Re: Press secretary: Our critics claim that the President's [#permalink]  11 Sep 2014, 20:28
Expert's post
shasara wrote:
can anyone explain why A option is not correct.

Whether there are other ways to punish legislative districts controlled by opposition parties is immaterial. The argument doesn't say that the President must punish legislative districts controlled by opposition parties. To assume that 'the President did not cancel the highway projects to punish' means 'he must have other ways to punish' is not only unwarranted but also unethical! Option (A) does not need to be true for the argument to hold and hence it is not an assumption.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
My Blog

Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for $199 Veritas Prep Reviews Intern Joined: 30 Oct 2011 Posts: 48 Followers: 0 Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 13 Re: Press secretary: Our critics claim that the President's [#permalink] 14 Sep 2014, 14:08 Hi Karishma, to me answer choice (B) looks more like an inference; since second line very clearly says 90% of cancellations are from the districts controlled by the opposition. This indirectly means that most of the cancellations were not from the president's districts i.e. answer choice (B), then why should we classify it as an assumption and not inference? On the contrary, (A) looks a better assumption to me if you apply negating rule. Please clarify my doubts. Thank you. VeritasPrepKarishma wrote: thangvietnam wrote: hard one. I can not prethink an assumption before going to the answer choices. experts, pls, come in . how to do this? Pre-thinking an assumption can really help you stay on track and identify the correct answer quickly. There may be multiple assumptions but pre-thinking is useful in most cases because you understand the argument well before jumping into the options. Argument: There are districts controlled and the President and there are some controlled by the opposition parties. The President canceled some projects. 90% of those were located in the opposition party districts. So opposition has been crying foul. The secretary is defending the President. He says that all of these were identified as wasteful by non partisan auditors. Conclusion: the President's choice was clearly motivated by sound budgetary policy, not partisan politics. Now we have to think an assumption for this conclusion. Think of a political argument in which you are taking part. You have to assume that whatever the other person says is the truth. You have to put forward a counter point keeping that in mind. So the other person says, 'all of these were identified as wasteful by non partisan auditors.' The question that should come to your mind is: which other projects did the non partisan auditors identify as wasteful? Say, they identified 20 wasteful projects. 12 from the President's districts and 8 from the opposition's. What if the President chose all the projects to be canceled from the 8 wasteful projects of the opposition's districts? Everything said in the argument stays true but the conclusion becomes invalid. The President would have been motivated by partisan politics in that case. The assumption you are looking for: Not many of the projects identified as wasteful were from the President's districts. Hence (B) is your assumption. Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor Joined: 16 Oct 2010 Posts: 5678 Location: Pune, India Followers: 1411 Kudos [?]: 7302 [1] , given: 186 Re: Press secretary: Our critics claim that the President's [#permalink] 14 Sep 2014, 23:04 1 This post received KUDOS Expert's post mneeti wrote: Hi Karishma, to me answer choice (B) looks more like an inference; since second line very clearly says 90% of cancellations are from the districts controlled by the opposition. This indirectly means that most of the cancellations were not from the president's districts i.e. answer choice (B), then why should we classify it as an assumption and not inference? On the contrary, (A) looks a better assumption to me if you apply negating rule. Please clarify my doubts. Thank you. Another way to figure out an assumption is inserting it in the argument with the premises and then checking whether the conclusion needs the assumption. Argument: There are districts controlled by the President and there are some controlled by the opposition parties. The President canceled some projects. 90% of those were located in the opposition party districts. So opposition has been crying foul. The secretary is defending the President. He says that all of these were identified as wasteful by non partisan auditors. Most of the wasteful projects identified were from opposition's districts. (That is why most of the canceled projects are from opposition's districts) Conclusion: the President's choice was clearly motivated by sound budgetary policy, not partisan politics. Mind you, you already have the conclusion of the argument and that is "President's choice was clearly motivated by sound budgetary policy, not partisan politics". But to prove that this is true, we need to know that most wasteful projects identified were from opposition's districts. What if the non partisan auditors identified 100 projects as wasteful out of which 90 were from President's districts but the President chose to cancel the rest of the 10 wasteful projects (which were from opposition's districts). In this case, the President is motivated by politics, right? So we need to know that the wasteful projects were predominantly from opposition's districts only. As for why (A) is not an assumption, please see my post right above yours. _________________ Karishma Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor My Blog Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for$199

Veritas Prep Reviews

Manager
Status: How easy it is?
Joined: 09 Nov 2012
Posts: 126
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, General Management
GMAT 1: 650 Q50 V27
GMAT 2: 710 Q49 V37
GPA: 3.5
WE: Operations (Other)
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 55 [0], given: 171

Press secretary: Our critics claim that the President's [#permalink]  15 Sep 2014, 15:11
For Secretary's argument to hold true one obvious assumption is that the auditor's report, on the basis of which she is making the argument, is not false or influenced. The report could have been influenced if he would have declared only the opposition party districts as wasteful and in that case opposition had all the right to cry foul and Scretary's argument will not hold its ground.

Option A confuses us because our attention gets diverted to all other not so relevant information given in the question. The main point is the relationship between the premise (auditor's report) and the conclusion (President not biased in his decision).
Intern
Status: Engineering consultant
Joined: 13 Jul 2014
Posts: 12
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V32
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 17

Re: Press secretary: Our critics claim that the President's [#permalink]  13 Oct 2014, 07:55
VeritasPrepKarishma wrote:
thangvietnam wrote:
Thank you veritas experts.
for many types of question such as assumption, evaluate, strengthen and weaken, prethinking an assumption is important step. do you suggest any tips, or articles for improving prethinking. your prethinking in this question is great.

Look at things from a critical viewpoint. Read articles related to critic's views, letters to the editor, political dialogues - anything and everything that will help you understand the various different view points. Try to find out what can strengthen/weaken others' arguments. Imagine that you are debating with someone - you need to think of counter points. It comes with practice.
But mind you, don't waste too much time trying to pre-think. If nothing comes to mind, just move on to the options. The options will give you a clue.

I have just one question. Its clearly mentioned in argument that 90% of projects were from Opposition's controlled districts. So clearly 10% remaining is in President's party controlled district. This so straightforward and say obvious thing which has no alternative. Answer suggest the same just by re-framing words. Why it should an assumption if argument does not have any alternative?
In any argument we have many obvious assumptions without any alternative. What shall we do in such cases?
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 5678
Location: Pune, India
Followers: 1411

Kudos [?]: 7302 [0], given: 186

Re: Press secretary: Our critics claim that the President's [#permalink]  13 Oct 2014, 19:51
Expert's post
Rudranket wrote:

I have just one question. Its clearly mentioned in argument that 90% of projects were from Opposition's controlled districts. So clearly 10% remaining is in President's party controlled district. This so straightforward and say obvious thing which has no alternative. Answer suggest the same just by re-framing words. Why it should an assumption if argument does not have any alternative?
In any argument we have many obvious assumptions without any alternative. What shall we do in such cases?

The argument only tells you that 90% of the canceled projects are from opposition's districts. It does not tell you that90% of projects identified as wasteful are from opposition's districts. That is given by option (B).

These are two different things. Non biased analysts identify projects which are wasteful. Then the govt decides which of those to cancel.

Decision to cancel projects would have been fair only if most projects identified as wasteful were from opposition's districts since most projects canceled are from opposition's districts.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
My Blog

Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for $199 Veritas Prep Reviews Intern Joined: 13 May 2014 Posts: 1 Followers: 0 Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 0 Re: Press secretary: Our critics claim that the President's [#permalink] 14 Oct 2014, 21:58 I thought that answer A will be more appropriated. Intern Joined: 07 Jan 2015 Posts: 1 Followers: 0 Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 7 Re: Press secretary: Our critics claim that the President's [#permalink] 31 Jan 2015, 03:53 I have a question .. How can b be an assumption when it's already given that 90 percent of such projects were canceled belonged to districts where opposition ruled . That makes it a premise? Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor Joined: 16 Oct 2010 Posts: 5678 Location: Pune, India Followers: 1411 Kudos [?]: 7302 [0], given: 186 Re: Press secretary: Our critics claim that the President's [#permalink] 01 Feb 2015, 22:39 Expert's post prachisal wrote: I have a question .. How can b be an assumption when it's already given that 90 percent of such projects were canceled belonged to districts where opposition ruled . That makes it a premise? I have already explained this above in this post: press-secretary-our-critics-claim-that-the-president-s-16458-20.html#p1427587 _________________ Karishma Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor My Blog Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for$199

Veritas Prep Reviews

Re: Press secretary: Our critics claim that the President's   [#permalink] 01 Feb 2015, 22:39

Go to page   Previous    1   2   3    Next  [ 44 posts ]

Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
8 Press Secretary: Our critics claim that the President s 12 16 Dec 2012, 05:39
Media Secretary: Opponents of our government claim that the 3 31 May 2009, 20:40
Press Secretary: Our critics claim that the President s 2 18 Jun 2007, 03:57
Criticism that the press panders to public sentiment 12 22 Mar 2007, 07:02
Criticism that the press panders to public sentiment 5 03 Dec 2006, 08:41
Display posts from previous: Sort by