alpha_plus_gamma wrote:
The fact that several of the largest senior citizens’ organizations are constituted almost exclusively of middle-class elderly people has led critics to question the seriousness of those organizations’ commitment to speaking out on behalf of the needs of economically disadvantaged elderly people.
Which of the following generalizations, if true, would help to substantiate the criticism implicit in the statement above?
(A) The ideology of an organization tends reflect the traditional political climate of its locale.
(B) The needs of disadvantaged elderly people differ in some ways from those of other disadvantaged groups within contemporary society.
(C) Organized groups are better able to publicize their problems and seek redress than individuals acting alone.
(D) Middle-class elderly people are more likely to join organizations than are economically disadvantaged elderly people.
(E) People usually join organizations whose purpose is to further the economic, political, or social interests of their members.
I am sorry to post the OA in the first post. But it is necessary since I want to discuss about the validity of the OA.
OA is E
I understand that this answer can be selected using POE and is the only relevant answer here BUT still their is flaw in OA.
Here's why:
The organization is for "senior citizens" and though majority of its members are middle class elderly people it is NOT meant only for "middle class elderly people". so when OA says "their members", it includes economically disadvantaged elderly people as well, which does not help substantiate the critique.
Can someone help me understand if I am wrong in the above reasoning?
Several senior citizens’ orgs are constituted almost exclusively of middle-class elderly people.
These orgs are committed to speaking out on behalf of the needs of economically disadvantaged elderly people.
Conclusion: The orgs are not serious in their commitment.
Which of the following generalizations, if true, would help to substantiate the criticism implicit in the statement above?
The criticism in the statement above is that the orgs are not serious in their commitment. What would help strengthen this criticism? Their commitment is to speak up on behalf of economically disadvantaged people but they are made up of mostly middle class. Which option will support the criticism?
(A) The ideology of an organization tends reflect the traditional political climate of its locale.
Irrelevant. The constitution of the org is under question.
(B) The needs of disadvantaged elderly people differ in some ways from those of other disadvantaged groups within contemporary society.
Doesn't support the criticism.
(C) Organized groups are better able to publicize their problems and seek redress than individuals acting alone.
Should be a point in support of the org.
(D) Middle-class elderly people are more likely to join organizations than are economically disadvantaged elderly people.
If this is true, the organisation's constitution reflects it. Why does the author say that the org is not serious about its commitment then?
(E) People usually join organizations whose purpose is to further the economic, political, or social interests of their members.
This says that people usually join those orgs whose purpose is to help their members. So if an org's purpose is to help
economically disadvantaged elderly, the economically disadvantaged elderly would join it. But several of the largest orgs for elderly do not have economically disadvantaged elderly. So do these orgs really have the purpose of helping speak on behalf of economically disadvantaged elderly? Seems doubtful. These orgs must not be serious abt their commitment towards the economically disadvantaged elderly, else the economically disadvantaged elderly would have joined the orgs.
This supports the author's criticism of the orgs' purpose based on the constitution of the orgs.
Answer (E)