|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 15 Dec 2003
Posts: 4441
Followers: 10
Kudos [?]:
82
[0], given: 0
|
The village is overrun by poisonous snakes. The mayor argues [#permalink]
 04 Apr 2004, 09:23
Question Stats:
0% (00:00) correct
100% (01:39) wrong based on 0 sessions
The village is overrun by poisonous snakes. The mayor argues that paying a 10$ bounty for each dead snakes turned in by a villager will result in riddling the village of snakes
Which of the following does NOT weaken the mayor's argument?
A) the bounty ensures that breeding the snakes is in the economic interest of the villagers
B) village taxes will triple if the mayor's proposal is implemented
C) the villagers do not trust the mayor
D) the snakes control the rat population, so the villagers will not kill the snakes
E) a drug company pays villagers 15$ for each live snake delivered to it
_________________
Best Regards,
Paul
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 27 Feb 2004
Posts: 245
Location: illinois
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
1
[0], given: 0
|
I would go with E..........The mayor's intention is to get rid of snakes..and if the drug company is willing to the job for him...then why not...I hope I am correct.....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 03 Jul 2003
Posts: 716
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
4
[0], given: 0
|
Another good one, which test the fundamentals!
My choice is C.
|
|
|
|
|
|
SVP
Joined: 30 Oct 2003
Posts: 1963
Location: NewJersey USA
Followers: 3
Kudos [?]:
25
[0], given: 0
|
E does not weaken the argument.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 15 Mar 2004
Posts: 180
Location: New York
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
2
[0], given: 0
|
E actually strengthens the arguement. Either b/c of the mayors proposal, or the Pharma's bounty, the village will get rid of snakes. Hmmm, here I go again, actually, if the bounty is $15, it gives the incentive to keep snakes. 
What do TAXES have to do with anything? NOTHING!
B
_________________
---------------------------------------------------
The more I learn, the more I realize I know nothing!
----------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 27 Feb 2004
Posts: 245
Location: illinois
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
1
[0], given: 0
|
The company gives 15$ to give away the snakes, not for keeping it. So they will get rid of the snakes.
Regarding the taxes, if the taxes increase then the mayor MAY NOT prpose to give 10$ to get rid of snakes, Just my 2 cents
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 15 Mar 2004
Posts: 180
Location: New York
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
2
[0], given: 0
|
monarc wrote: The company gives 15$ to give away the snakes, not for keeping it. So they will get rid of the snakes.
Regarding the taxes, if the taxes increase then the mayor MAY NOT prpose to give 10$ to get rid of snakes, Just my 2 cents
Monarc, see choice A. I dint mean that they would keep the snakes, I ment that it might give an incentive to keep constant supply of snakes @$15. Maybe I am a bit braindead today. 
_________________
---------------------------------------------------
The more I learn, the more I realize I know nothing!
----------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 15 Dec 2003
Posts: 4441
Followers: 10
Kudos [?]:
82
[0], given: 0
|
OA is C. Nice one Kpadma.
E is wrong but we cannot relate it to A because each choices should be seen as independent clauses.
E can be negated in the sense that if a company already has a system whereby they pay 15$ to villagers to bring them back snake but yet, the city is still overrun by snakes as the opening sentence implies, then what is the use of paying less to get rid of snakes?
B can also be negated. If village taxes are to triple, then will villagers accept the given plan? Will that not weaken the argument in the sense that the plan is then futile?
_________________
Best Regards,
Paul
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 15 Mar 2004
Posts: 180
Location: New York
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
2
[0], given: 0
|
Paul wrote: OA is C. Nice one Kpadma. E is wrong but we cannot relate it to A because each choices should be seen as independent clauses. E can be negated in the sense that if a company already has a system whereby they pay 15$ to villagers to bring them back snake but yet, the city is still overrun by snakes as the opening sentence implies, then what is the use of paying less to get rid of snakes? B can also be negated. If village taxes are to triple, then will villagers accept the given plan? Will that not weaken the argument in the sense that the plan is then futile? Ok, I think its time for my brain to enter a retirement home: 
But before I do that, IMO, or am I missing something here. C weakens the argument the MOST. If the villagers DO NOT trust the mayor, they won't t collect snakes, and the village will not be rid of snakes. DOESNT that weaken his argument that his $10 bounty will result in city with fewer snakes??? His argument is invalid, b/c it won't work, thus weakens.. Please explain why I am wrong!
_________________
---------------------------------------------------
The more I learn, the more I realize I know nothing!
----------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 15 Dec 2003
Posts: 4441
Followers: 10
Kudos [?]:
82
[0], given: 0
|
I agree with you lvb9th that if the villagers do not trust the mayor, then it would be pointless to propose the plan. However(yes, of course), in light of all the other answers which clearly weaken the argument, then C stands as the best answer. We can look at it this way: whether or not the villagers trust the mayor, we are interested in evaluating the mayor's proposal, not the mayor himself, which would be besides the point. Moreover, a personal attack on the mayor rather than an attack to the "proposal" itself would invalidate C and make it the "best" answer.
_________________
Best Regards,
Paul
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 15 Mar 2004
Posts: 180
Location: New York
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
2
[0], given: 0
|
Paul wrote: I agree with you lvb9th that if the villagers do not trust the mayor, then it would be pointless to propose the plan. However(yes, of course), in light of all the other answers which clearly weaken the argument, then C stands as the best answer. We can look at it this way: whether or not the villagers trust the mayor, we are interested in evaluating the mayor's proposal, not the mayor himself, which would be besides the point. Moreover, a personal attack on the mayor rather than an attack to the "proposal" itself would invalidate C and make it the "best" answer.
Hmm, thanks Paul. Maybe Kpadma can chip in. His statement of the FUNDUMENTALS really concerns me. If in fact these are the fundumentals, and the questions is fairly easy, I am SCREWED!
_________________
---------------------------------------------------
The more I learn, the more I realize I know nothing!
----------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
metallicafan, rajeevrks27, souvik101990, PTK, MacFauz, noboru, kissthegmat, carcass, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, doe007, Vercules, Legendaddy, tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Marcab, Narenn
|
close
