|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 25 Aug 2007
Posts: 959
WE 1: 3.5 yrs IT
WE 2: 2.5 yrs Retail chain
Followers: 38
Kudos [?]:
557
[0], given: 40
|
The report into Government interference in the running of [#permalink]
 14 Apr 2010, 11:06
Question Stats:
40% (02:05) correct
60% (01:19) wrong based on 0 sessions
The report into Government interference in the running of local authorities should be regarded as suspicious as its main author is Sir William Henderson, who campaigned vigorously on behalf of the opposing party at the last general election. Which of the following forms the most appropriate criticism to the argument contained in the statement above? A)It ignores the possible political affiliations of the other authors of the report. B) It does not take into account the possibility that Sir William may have altered his political allegiance since the general election. C) It fails to consider the possibility that Sir William may be an expert on local authorities. D) It assumes that Sir William's ability to write an unbiased report is compromised by his political allegiance. E) It assumes that Sir William's inability to sway the last election in favour of the opposing party indicates that he is equally unable to write a convincing report on local authorities.
_________________
Want to improve your CR: cr-methods-an-approach-to-find-the-best-answers-93146.html
Tricky Quant problems: 50-tricky-questions-92834.html
Important Grammer Fundamentals: key-fundamentals-of-grammer-our-crucial-learnings-on-sc-93659.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 29 Oct 2009
Posts: 203
Concentration: General Management, Sustainability
WE: Consulting (Computer Software)
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
37
[0], given: 12
|
Re: Sir William Henderson, who campaigned vigorously [#permalink]
14 Apr 2010, 11:53
IMO it is D. D) It assumes that Sir William's ability to write an unbiased report is compromised by his political allegiance. >> Yes. This is the correct assumption from which the argument says his report is suspicious.
_________________
+1Kudos, if this helps
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 24 Jul 2009
Posts: 301
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
51
[0], given: 0
|
Re: Sir William Henderson, who campaigned vigorously [#permalink]
14 Apr 2010, 12:07
this is weaken the argument question.!!
IMHO B.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 20 Mar 2007
Posts: 62
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
2
[0], given: 0
|
Re: Sir William Henderson, who campaigned vigorously [#permalink]
14 Apr 2010, 13:22
nverma wrote: this is weaken the argument question.!!
IMHO B. I dont get it.Does the argument not assume the association as described in choice D?If that assumption is flawed ->i.e If Sir William can write an unbiased report irrespective of his political affiliations,is the argument not weakened?Please explain how you ruled out this answer in favour of choice B. Going with D here.OA pls.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 20 Nov 2009
Posts: 172
Followers: 5
Kudos [?]:
14
[0], given: 64
|
Re: Sir William Henderson, who campaigned vigorously [#permalink]
16 Apr 2010, 00:28
IMO: D
_________________
But there’s something in me that just keeps going on. I think it has something to do with tomorrow, that there is always one, and that everything can change when it comes.
http://aimingformba.blogspot.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 24 Jul 2009
Posts: 301
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
51
[0], given: 0
|
Re: Sir William Henderson, who campaigned vigorously [#permalink]
16 Apr 2010, 02:11
Kiski wrote: nverma wrote: this is weaken the argument question.!!
IMHO B. I dont get it.Does the argument not assume the association as described in choice D?If that assumption is flawed ->i.e If Sir William can write an unbiased report irrespective of his political affiliations,is the argument not weakened?Please explain how you ruled out this answer in favour of choice B. Going with D here.OA pls. I may be wrong here, but i think the premise is: "Sir William Henderson campaigned vigorously on behalf of the opposing party at the last general election" conclusion: "Report must be suspicious" I think B directly weakens/doubts the Premise. OA plz..!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 07 Jan 2010
Posts: 251
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
5
[0], given: 16
|
Re: Sir William Henderson, who campaigned vigorously [#permalink]
16 Apr 2010, 04:53
I will vote for A.
The conclusion concerns Williams' truthfulness because of his previous political association. If you point out that any person writing such a report will have some political background, then you disapprove the conclusion most.
B,C, and D could go either way: one answer could strengthen the argument, and other would weaken it.
E is OOS I think.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 25 Aug 2007
Posts: 959
WE 1: 3.5 yrs IT
WE 2: 2.5 yrs Retail chain
Followers: 38
Kudos [?]:
557
[0], given: 40
|
Re: Sir William Henderson, who campaigned vigorously [#permalink]
21 May 2010, 04:55
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Sir William Henderson, who campaigned vigorously
[#permalink]
21 May 2010, 04:55
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
metallicafan, rajeevrks27, souvik101990, PTK, MacFauz, noboru, kissthegmat, carcass, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, doe007, Vercules, Legendaddy, tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Marcab, Narenn
|
close
