The New Deal in America began in 1933 and included widespread bank ref

Conclusion: New Deal single handedly propelled the United States out of the Great Depression and into decades of uninterrupted prosperity.

B isn't an alternative cause.
New Deal began in 1933 and years following 1933 saw increase in GDP, employment and optimism. In 1941, after US was out of the Great Depression, there could have been an additional cause of these increases. New Deal could have still single handedly propelled US out of the Great Depression. Hence B doesn't weaken the conclusion.


D weakens the conclusion by saying that the prosperity was not uninterrupted - no matter how long the interruption was.

IMO D.

Only D tells us that how the following statement was not correct: "Some political commentators and economic historians contend that President Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal single handedly propelled the United States out of the Great Depression and into decades of uninterrupted prosperity"

OA:
The argument's claim is: the "New Deal singlehandedly propelled the United States out of the Great Depression and into decades of uninterrupted prosperity."

The argument's evidence for this is: "during the years following 1933, GDP grew, unemployment shrunk, and optimism increased."
There are two major ways to undermine the claim that the "New Deal singlehandedly propelled the United States out of the Great Depression and into decades of uninterrupted prosperity." (1) Show that another event propelled the United States out of the depression. (2) Show that the New Deal did not propel the Unites States out of the depression.

In order to weaken the argument, it would be helpful to weaken the evidence cited in the argument ("economists note that during the years following 1933, GDP grew, unemployment shrunk, and optimism increased").

Most of you have it right. Thanks!

The New Deal in America began in 1933 and included widespread bank reforms, unprecedented government infrastructure spending, and unparalleled expansion in the size of government. Some political commentators and economic historians contend that President Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal single handedly propelled the United States out of the Great Depression and into decades of uninterrupted prosperity. To support this claim, these economists note that during the years following 1933, GDP grew, unemployment shrunk, and optimism increased.

Statement against this would be the correct option.

A) The considerable debt burden that the government assumed to fund the New Deal sparked fear in the minds of some economists, investors, and businessmen.--- seems right by POE.
B) The considerable government expenditures and massive labor requirements engendered by America's entry into World War II in late 1941 helped employ Americans and grow GDP.---does not go against the argument because talks about an year which is beyond scope.
D) During 1939, the U.S. economy contracted sharply, unemployment jumped 5%, and America's optimism fell.--Does not weaken the argument. In fact, it is possible that the economy revived under FR but due to some other reasons contracted again in 1939.

I still think it is B rather than D.

The WWII is the altrenative cause for ex "during the years following 1933, GDP grew, unemployment shrunk, and optimism increased." and weakens:"single handedly propelled "

While in D:
During 1939, the U.S. economy contracted sharply, unemployment jumped 5%, and America's optimism fell.

It could be possible that during the year 1939 for one month the economy contracted sharply, unemployment jumped 5%, and America's optimism fell, but then the overall year was good?

Agree that D is better, but the arguments says New Deal Single Handedly pulled the country out of great depression, but B shows an alternate evidence saying that No WWii was also cause for the rise in US economy. Right?

The argument says that the New Deal single handedly pulled the country out of depression, not that it alone was responsible for decades of uninterrupted prosperity. Since the time gap between 1933 - when the deal began- and 1941 - when US entered World War II- was quite large (of about 8 yrs), it is still possible that the New Deal single handedly pulled US out of depression in mid and late 30s and the World War provided a further boost to the economy later (after US was already out of depression). Hence B doesn't necessarily weaken the conclusion.

IMO D.

Choice B talks about other possible causes that could have propelled America into years of uninterrupted prosperity. However, the year that option B mentions is 1941. The New Deal was already put into action by 1933. That is why its positive effects were observed after 1933. So a cause in 1941 could not have been responsible for the positive effects observed after 1933.

Option D directly negates the main premise that the economists supporting the New Deal state. By introducing this contrasting evidence, it reduces the likelihood of the conclusion that the years following 1933 were all positive. Had all the years been positive, 1939 would not have seen this decrease.

That is why option D weakens the argument. Hope this explanations helps.

would you please help why A is wrong?

- siddharthmuzumdar
_________________

To add to souvik101990's comment, note that the conclusion is
"the New Deal singlehandedly propelled the US out of the Great Depression into decades of prosperity."

You need to weaken the conclusion. Option (A) says

A) The considerable debt burden that the government assumed to fund the New Deal sparked fear in the minds of some economists, investors, and businessmen.

Some economists were worried about the debt taken by the govt. Does this affect our conclusion? First of all, we don't know whether the debt taken was actually worrisome. Perhaps the economists were overreacting. Secondly, even if it was, what we are concerned about is what actually happened. What actually happened was that the new deal propelled US out of Great depression. Even if worrisome debt was taken, it was taken care of successfully.

So all said and done, the worry of some economists has nothing to do with out conclusion.

The New Deal in America began in 1933.
Some political commentators and economic historians contend that President Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal single handedly propelled the United States out of the Great Depression and into decades of uninterrupted prosperity.
To support this claim, these economists note that during the years following 1933, GDP grew, unemployment shrunk, and optimism increased.

Which of the following weakens the above argument?

A) The considerable debt burden that the government assumed to fund the New Deal sparked fear in the minds of some economists, investors, and businessmen.
Emotions cannot support or reject a claim.
B) The considerable government expenditures and massive labor requirements engendered by America's entry into World War II in late 1941 helped employ Americans and grow GDP.
supports the claim or conclusion.
C) On average, GDP per capita fell and unemployment rose in many foreign countries during the years after President Roosevelt announced his New Deal.
what happened in foreign countries does not define the situation in US.
D) During 1939, the U.S. economy contracted sharply, unemployment jumped 5%, and America's optimism fell.
this shows that the claim does not hold true completely and weakens the claim
E) U.S. GDP during the mid 1930s stood at levels much lower than 30 years later.
this means that GDP increased after 1935 and supports the claim

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

The argument's claim is: the "New Deal singlehandedly propelled the United States out of the Great Depression and into decades of uninterrupted prosperity."

The argument's evidence for this is: "during the years following 1933, GDP grew, unemployment shrunk, and optimism increased."

There are two major ways to undermine the claim that the "New Deal singlehandedly propelled the United States out of the Great Depression and into decades of uninterrupted prosperity." (1) Show that another event propelled the United States out of the depression. (2) Show that the New Deal did not propel the Unites States out of the depression.

In order to weaken the argument, it would be helpful to weaken the evidence cited in the argument ("economists note that during the years following 1933, GDP grew, unemployment shrunk, and optimism increased").

A. The stimulus never states that the fear sparked in "some" (note that we do not know how many) by debt spending actually exceeded the fear of not debt spending on infrastructure etc.. Further, this answer never states that the fear actually translated into a reduction in GDP or an increase in unemployment (the two main factors used to support the argument).

B. This answer merely states that World War II "expanded" economic prosperity. There is a difference between expanding prosperity and propelling a country out of a recession (i.e., the New Deal may have propelled the USA out of the depression while World War II strengthened the already growing economy). This answer does not state that World War II "propelled the United States out" of a depression and so it does not weaken the argument that it was the New Deal (not another program or event) that propelled the United States out of the Great Depression.

C. This answer speaks to the global condition while the argument pertains only to what "propelled the United States out" of the depression.

D. This answer undermines the notion that the New Deal "singlehandedly propelled the United States out of the Great Depression and into decades of uninterrupted prosperity" since the recession came back six years later.

E. This answer fails to weaken the original argument that the New Deal "singlehandedly propelled" the country out of the Great Depression since numerous other events could have propelled the country out of the depression between 1933 and 30 years after the mid-1930s.
_________________

nightblade354 Hi , weakening a premise/evidence cant be done , per my understanding. Whats your take ?


Regards
_________________

For non natives/not americans/least bothered about american depression : Depression started in 1929 and lasted till 1941 , so B does not weaken.
_________________

I feel this is a great question. It shows how vigilant we should be on the lookout for details in the argument and not succumb to some pre-thought assumptions (like we are about to expect an alternate reason here and that should be our answer). I did fall victim to this assumption and chose B over D. VeritasKarishma thanks much for the crystal clear explanation which makes me think how could I miss such an easy one. You just made this super hard question feel like a cake-walk with this level of simple explanation. Lesson learnt!

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
_________________