There is no point in spending millions of dollars on : GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR)
Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases http://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 22 Jan 2017, 05:30

### 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

# There is no point in spending millions of dollars on

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Senior Manager
Joined: 07 Jan 2008
Posts: 412
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 217 [0], given: 0

There is no point in spending millions of dollars on [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Jun 2008, 02:18
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

There is no point in spending millions of dollars on security arrangements to protect the President from assassination. It would be impossible to shield any public official from all contact with the outside world 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Therefore, a determined assassin will always be able to find some opportunity to attack the President.
The above argument would be most weakened if which of the following were true?

A) Reducing the number of opportunities for an attack on the President will discourage most assassins and improve the President's chances for survival.

B) By discouraging attacks on the President, the security arrangements surrounding him also protect the lives of bystanders who might be hurt in an assassination attempt.

C) Most individuals who attempt to take the life of a political leader are mentally unstable and unable to make rational judgments about their actions.

D) It is part of American tradition that political leaders make themselves available to the general public on a regular basis.

E) The cost of an assassination attempt would be prohibitively high for most people.
If you have any questions
New!
Manager
Joined: 22 Jun 2008
Posts: 101
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 102 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

24 Jun 2008, 02:20
lexis wrote:
There is no point in spending millions of dollars on security arrangements to protect the President from assassination. It would be impossible to shield any public official from all contact with the outside world 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Therefore, a determined assassin will always be able to find some opportunity to attack the President.
The above argument would be most weakened if which of the following were true?

A) Reducing the number of opportunities for an attack on the President will discourage most assassins and improve the President's chances for survival.

B) By discouraging attacks on the President, the security arrangements surrounding him also protect the lives of bystanders who might be hurt in an assassination attempt.

C) Most individuals who attempt to take the life of a political leader are mentally unstable and unable to make rational judgments about their actions.

D) It is part of American tradition that political leaders make themselves available to the general public on a regular basis.

E) The cost of an assassination attempt would be prohibitively high for most people.

A should be the answer. A means it's effective...!
SVP
Joined: 04 May 2006
Posts: 1926
Schools: CBS, Kellogg
Followers: 23

Kudos [?]: 1013 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

24 Jun 2008, 02:28
D for me!
_________________
Director
Joined: 01 Jan 2008
Posts: 513
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 52 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

24 Jun 2008, 02:53
B for me. Even A was a good option, but B covers ordinary ppl also hence more inclusive. Sondenso why did u select "d"
Senior Manager
Joined: 05 Jun 2008
Posts: 307
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 128 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

24 Jun 2008, 02:59
SVP
Joined: 04 May 2006
Posts: 1926
Schools: CBS, Kellogg
Followers: 23

Kudos [?]: 1013 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

24 Jun 2008, 03:03
bhatiagp wrote:
B for me. Even A was a good option, but B covers ordinary ppl also hence more inclusive. Sondenso why did u select "d"

May be I misunderstood the question asked, I interpreted that What following weaken the argument?

The argument claims that It would be impossible to shield any public official from all contact with the outside world 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

D attacked the argument by saying that "...regular basis" will leave "the President" at least one day of 24h, during which the president does "shield any public official from all contact with the outside world"
_________________
SVP
Joined: 28 Dec 2005
Posts: 1575
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 147 [0], given: 2

### Show Tags

24 Jun 2008, 03:37
I chose A as well, its the only one that made sense to me. B to me was out of scope since its talking about bystanders as well.
CEO
Joined: 17 May 2007
Posts: 2989
Followers: 60

Kudos [?]: 581 [0], given: 210

### Show Tags

24 Jun 2008, 03:38
Whats wrong with C ??? If the individuals are mentally unstable then perhaps they wont ALWAYS be able to find a way through security...
CEO
Joined: 17 May 2007
Posts: 2989
Followers: 60

Kudos [?]: 581 [0], given: 210

### Show Tags

24 Jun 2008, 14:29
OA ?
Current Student
Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 3384
Location: New York City
Schools: Wharton'11 HBS'12
Followers: 15

Kudos [?]: 282 [0], given: 2

### Show Tags

24 Jun 2008, 14:55
tough one..between A and D...

will go with A
Manager
Joined: 09 May 2008
Posts: 102
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 19 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

24 Jun 2008, 20:42
IMO (A) is correct.
B,C and D are irrelevant. Between A and E, A is the best.
Director
Joined: 27 May 2008
Posts: 549
Followers: 8

Kudos [?]: 312 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

24 Jun 2008, 21:04
the problem with D is that is assumes that we are talking about American president only. There are other countries with presidents, and there are people who want to kill them too.

IMO A.
Current Student
Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Posts: 228
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 58 [0], given: 3

### Show Tags

24 Jun 2008, 21:35
lexis wrote:
There is no point in spending millions of dollars on security arrangements to protect the President from assassination. It would be impossible to shield any public official from all contact with the outside world 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Therefore, a determined assassin will always be able to find some opportunity to attack the President.
The above argument would be most weakened if which of the following were true?

A) Reducing the number of opportunities for an attack on the President will discourage most assassins and improve the President's chances for survival.

B) By discouraging attacks on the President, the security arrangements surrounding him also protect the lives of bystanders who might be hurt in an assassination attempt.

C) Most individuals who attempt to take the life of a political leader are mentally unstable and unable to make rational judgments about their actions.

D) It is part of American tradition that political leaders make themselves available to the general public on a regular basis.

E) The cost of an assassination attempt would be prohibitively high for most people.

I'm surprised by everyones answers... personally I'd choose E, maybe I'm just completely misreading this CR.

Argument:
impossible to shield any public official from all contact with the outside world 24/7/365 =>
a determined assassin will always find an opportunity to attack the president =>
Conclusion:
There is no point in spending money to protect the president

A) Reducing the number of opportunities for an attack on the President will discourage most assassins and improve the President's chances for survival.
-does not hurt any of the arguments, we're talking about the opportunity to attack the president, not about his chance for survival. Outside the scope of this CR

B) By discouraging attacks on the President, the security arrangements surrounding him also protect the lives of bystanders who might be hurt in an assassination attempt.
-does not even relate to the arguments, we dont' care about the lives of bystanders, outside scope

C) Most individuals who attempt to take the life of a political leader are mentally unstable and unable to make rational judgments about their actions.
-what? outside scope

D) It is part of American tradition that political leaders make themselves available to the general public on a regular basis.
-reinforces one of our arguments, not weakens

E) The cost of an assassination attempt would be prohibitively high for most people
-direct weakens the argument that 'a determined assassin will always find an opportunity to attack the president', since a determined assassin may not have the resources due to the prohibitively high cost.
Director
Joined: 27 May 2008
Posts: 549
Followers: 8

Kudos [?]: 312 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

24 Jun 2008, 21:53
Conclusion:
There is no point in spending money to protect the president.

We have to find something that weakens it. We can look it it this way

Alternate Conclusion: There is a point in spending money to protect the president.
Now we have to find something that supports this. The important point here is "protect the president"

A : supports the alternate
B : reduces number of attacks, but doesnt protect the president, when he is sleeping in his bedroom.
C : what if the determined assasin is not mentally instable
D : what if we are not talking about American president
E : ok this will prevent most of the people, but even if few are left with determination and funds, president is not protected.
Current Student
Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Posts: 228
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 58 [0], given: 3

### Show Tags

24 Jun 2008, 22:12
durgesh79 wrote:
Conclusion:
There is no point in spending money to protect the president.

We have to find something that weakens it. We can look it it this way

Alternate Conclusion: There is a point in spending money to protect the president.
Now we have to find something that supports this. The important point here is "protect the president"

A : supports the alternate
B : reduces number of attacks, but doesnt protect the president, when he is sleeping in his bedroom.
C : what if the determined assasin is not mentally instable
D : what if we are not talking about American president
E : ok this will prevent most of the people, but even if few are left with determination and funds, president is not protected.

A) is reducing the number of attacks from assassins who are easily discouraged - therefore 'not' determined - and improves the presidents chances for survival.
a determined assassin will not be discouraged and will still find some opportunity to attack the president

E) is reducing the number of attacks from assassins who can't afford it - and improves the presidents chances for survival
an assassin who can't afford it has no way of assassinating the president regardless of determined/not determined.

Both A & E supports the fact that there is a point in spending money to protect the president, but E is superior.
Senior Manager
Joined: 14 Mar 2007
Posts: 317
Location: Hungary
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 25 [0], given: 3

### Show Tags

24 Jun 2008, 22:21
I also think that E is better than A.
Director
Joined: 27 May 2008
Posts: 549
Followers: 8

Kudos [?]: 312 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

24 Jun 2008, 22:22
jasonc wrote:

A) is reducing the number of attacks from assassins who are easily discouraged - therefore 'not' determined - and improves the presidents chances for survival.
a determined assassin will not be discouraged and will still find some opportunity to attack the president

E) is reducing the number of attacks from assassins who can't afford it - and improves the presidents chances for survival
an assassin who can't afford it has no way of assassinating the president regardless of determined/not determined.

Both A & E supports the fact that there is a point in spending money to protect the president, but E is superior.

I see you logic but i still feel that A is superior... A includes all people who'll be discouraged, the reasons could be
lack of funds.
fear of getting caught.
fear of getting killed.
and it says "will discourage most assasins", it doesnt tell "easily"

E includes only those who are lacking money. so if the money problem is solved, they'll go for it....
Current Student
Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Posts: 228
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 58 [0], given: 3

### Show Tags

24 Jun 2008, 22:41
durgesh79 wrote:
jasonc wrote:

A) is reducing the number of attacks from assassins who are easily discouraged - therefore 'not' determined - and improves the presidents chances for survival.
a determined assassin will not be discouraged and will still find some opportunity to attack the president

E) is reducing the number of attacks from assassins who can't afford it - and improves the presidents chances for survival
an assassin who can't afford it has no way of assassinating the president regardless of determined/not determined.

Both A & E supports the fact that there is a point in spending money to protect the president, but E is superior.

I see you logic but i still feel that A is superior... A includes all people who'll be discouraged, the reasons could be
lack of funds.
fear of getting caught.
fear of getting killed.
and it says "will discourage most assasins", it doesnt tell "easily"

E includes only those who are lacking money. so if the money problem is solved, they'll go for it....

I've never been very good at explaining these CRs haha

Maybe this will help:
E) attacks the intermediate conclusion of 'a determined assassin will always find an opportunity to attack the president'
A) does not
Senior Manager
Joined: 14 Mar 2007
Posts: 317
Location: Hungary
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 25 [0], given: 3

### Show Tags

24 Jun 2008, 23:25
I still stick to E.

Conclusion:Therefore, a determined assassin will always be able to find some opportunity to attack the President.

We have to weaken this conclusion.

A. reducing the chance for most assasins does not mean that we reduced the chance for determined assassins
So, A does not weaken the argument
E. The cost is very high to kill the president, therefore many determined assassins cannot afford to kill the president.
So, E weakens the argument, since many determined assassins will not be able to kill the president.

What is the OA?
Intern
Joined: 05 Jun 2008
Posts: 2
Followers: 0

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

### Show Tags

24 Jun 2008, 23:52
IMO E. E seems to be making the assasination even tougher.

Re: CR: President assassination   [#permalink] 24 Jun 2008, 23:52

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 35 posts ]

Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
2 The city of Springlyville is spending a large portion 2 22 Mar 2016, 08:57
2 Spending on research and development by United States 1 19 May 2015, 21:00
36 Spending on research and development by United States 22 08 May 2010, 04:35
It would cost Hamilton Inc. two million dollars to stop the 12 23 Feb 2009, 12:43
Candidate: The government spends \$500 million more each year 5 01 Mar 2007, 02:46
Display posts from previous: Sort by