Thyrian lawmaker Thyrias Cheese Importation Board inspects all cheese

You are completely wrong in your explanation
C is Wrong because it is stating exactly the opposite of what the lawmaker is saying.
C is saying Lawmaker reasons for disbanding are not economic.
In reality Lawmaker is saying that for economic reasons alone the board should be disbanded. (Forget about other factors, such a bureaucracy, delays, undue favours from cheese makers, Preferential treatment to some countries and all). The Lawmakers motivation are purely Economic. He is saying Why spend so much money on the salary, laboratory, and other expenses of the board when only 1% of cheese is rejected and even if this 1 % of cheese is not rejected it will not create any other cost in that form of health issues or other economic factors.

Thyrian Cheese
 
Step 1: Identify the Question

This question asks you how the consultant responds to the lawmaker’s argument, so this is a Describe the Argument question.

Step 2: Deconstruct the Argument

LM: CIB not worth it
- only reject 1%
- low econ cost if not rejected
- high oper. Costs
Cons: CIB deters bad cheese

The lawmaker presents an argument and the consultant responds. How does the response relate to the original argument?

Step 3: Pause and State the Goal

On Describe the Argument, focus on the structure of the argument and how its pieces fit together. In this case, the correct answer should explain how the consultant’s response relates to the original argument by the lawmaker.

The consultant does not refute any of the facts presented by the lawmaker. Rather, the consultant introduces a new factor that she believes will support her disagreement with the lawmaker’s argument.

Step 4: Work from Wrong to Right

(A) While the consultant does disagree with the lawmaker, she does not propose changing the board’s standards.
(B) The consultant does not mention the costs of maintaining the board.
(C) Although the consultant does disagree with the lawmaker’s conclusion, she does not object to any specific factors mentioned by the lawmaker.
(D) CORRECT. The consultant states that the board may deter exporters from shipping bad cheese to Thyria, a benefit of the board that the lawmaker did not mention. If no board exists, perhaps many bad cheeses will begin to be imported in great volume, causing health problems.
(E) The consultant does not discuss the integrity of board inspectors.

Experts please help me analyse this question mikemcgarry @veritasprep egmat

Dear shinrai15,

I'm happy to respond.

My friend, because I want to see your improve, I am going to chide you. The question you posted here is a poor quality question. It probably took you only about 30 seconds to post it--if you don't invest much energy into it, you are not going reap much of a reward from it. You see, many students imagine that education is something that teachers and experts "do" to the student. In fact, each student is 100% responsible for his own education: education is a process you do to yourself, by yourself, and for yourself. We experts can only help: we can provide information, but the hard work of learning is always on the shoulders of the student.

It would help you immensely to ask a high quality question. Such a question would involve reflection. You would state very clearly what your understanding of the question is, what makes sense and what doesn't. Forcing yourself to articulate all this activate multiple regions of the brain. Sometimes in the process of articulating all this, you can figure out the question for yourself. Even if that doesn't happen, all this work prepares your brain to receive the answer at a deeper level. Also, the more you explain your own understanding, the more an expert can give you a focused response. See:
Asking Excellent Questions

My friend, my challenge to you is to write the highest quality question you can. Read through this entire thread, noting other questions and experts' responses. Then, explain what is clear to you and what still confuses you. If you ask this high quality question, I will be happy to answer it.

Does all this make sense?
Mike

Here is my understanding of the question:-


Thyrian lawmaker: Thyria’s Cheese Importation Board inspects all cheese shipments to Thyria and rejects shipments not meeting specified standards. Yet only 1 percent is ever rejected. Therefore, since the health consequences and associated economic costs of not rejecting that 1 percent are negligible, whereas the board’s operating costs are considerable, for economic reasons alone the board should be disbanded.

1. Thyrian lawmaker says that the thyrian cheese board inspects all shipments according to the specified standards.
2. The author then uses a contrast word “Yet”, which means the following sentence will be a contrast to the above sentence.
3. The author goes on to state that despite or can I say because of the sated standards only 1 percent gets rejected?
4. The author then makes an assumption, that the health consequences and associated economic costs of NOT rejecting that 1 percent cheese shipments is NEGLIGIBLE. Uses a contrast word again “whereas” the boards operating costs are high/considerable.
5. The conclusion then is based on the assumption “that as health consequences and associated economic costs of NOT rejecting that 1 percent cheese shipments is NEGLIGIBLE” only for economic reasons the board should be disbanded

Consultant: I disagree. The threat of having their shipments rejected deters many cheese exporters from shipping substandard product.

6. Consultant clears disagrees with the Thyrian lawmaker in his first statement.

7. Then presents a reason that just the mere act of inspection by the board ensures/forces cheese makers to NOT ship substandard cheese while exporting. This indicates the important role played by the board.

8. It is possible that not having the board the cheese makers may start shipping sub-standard quality while exporting, but the mere act of inspection by the board ensures that they don’t do this, so the having a board is very important.

Answer choice (POE)

The consultant responds to the lawmaker’s argument by

(A) rejecting the lawmaker’s argument while proposing that the standards according to which the board inspects imported cheese should be raised
Clearly the consultant rejects the lawmaker’s argument, but doesn’t propose any change or raise in the standards of inspection of the board (Out of Scope)

(B) providing evidence that the lawmaker’s argument has significantly overestimated the cost of maintaining the board
Consultant doesn’t mention anything to do with costs (irrelevant)

(C) objecting to the lawmaker’s introducing into the discussion factors that are not strictly economic
I am unable to comprehend the language and had initially selected this choice as the answer

(D) pointing out a benefit of maintaining the board, which the lawmaker’s argument has failed to consider
This seems like a stronger contender as the lawmaker overlooks the fact that by just having the board inspect, the cheese makers fear rejection and thus ensure to NOT export substandard cheese.

(E) shifting the discussion from the argument at hand to an attack on the integrity of the cheese inspectors
There is no shift in the discussion to integrity of the cheese inspectors (irrelevant)

mikemcgarry thank you for your reply and asking me to do this.
In my first attempt, I was stuck between C and D ...now know that D is the answer but please help me understand choice C to reject it on solid grounds.

Thanks in advance!
S

Dear shinrai15,

Kudos to you for a truly excellent question! I'm very glad you found this process helpful! I'm happy to respond!

I will disagree with your analysis a little. Consider these two statements of the Thyrian lawmaker:
1) the health consequences and associated economic costs of not rejecting that 1 percent are negligible
2) the board’s operating costs are considerable
Those are not assumptions. Both of those are evidence. Part of our job as solvers of the GMAT CR is to assume that all evidence is true.
The word "since" is a a reason-word--it gives the reason for something, the logical justification for something. Almost always, what is contained in the "since" subordinate clause in a GMAT CR argument would be evidence, and the second half of the sentence is likely to be a conclusion.

Since X, Y. X is evidence, Y is a conclusion--either a preliminary conclusion or the main conclusion.

The word "whereas" is a funny conjunction--it implies contrast within in the same sequence. Since this "whereas" clause follows a "since" clause, the "whereas" clause contains more evidence, evidence that somehow contrasts with the first set of evidence. Here, the contrast is small benefit vs. big cost.

Now, let's look at (C):
(C) objecting to the lawmaker’s introducing into the discussion factors that are not strictly economic

This is a tricky one for a few reasons. First of all, whether something is "economic" is not necessarily obvious--it's not necessarily strictly about dollars & cents. For example, "health consequences" are primarily about people's experience, but of course they regularly have HUGE economic consequences--not only medical costs, including the costs of medicine and insurance outlays, but also the lost productivity in the work place. In fact, the Thyrian lawmaker specifically says "health consequences and associated economic costs." To all appearances, it doesn't seem as if the Thyrian lawmaker mentioned anything that is unrelated to economics, and his conclusion is 100% economically based.

Furthermore, and this is even more important: the consultant doesn't disagree with any fact the lawmaker presents. He doesn't dispute or call into question or "object to" any of that evidence at all. The consultant simply brings up a new fact, a new piece of evidence, something that the lawmaker failed to consider.

To understand this better, let me give an example of a made-up argument in which (C) would be correct.
Thyrian lawmaker: Thyria’s Cheese Importation Board inspects all cheese shipments to Thyria and rejects shipments not meeting specified standards. Yet only 1 percent is ever rejected. The health consequences and associated economic costs of not rejecting that 1 percent are negligible, whereas the board’s operating costs are considerable. Moreover, Thyrian food critics praise the quality of this imported cheese and are always curious to try more. Therefore, for economic reasons alone the board should be disbanded.

Consultant: What the Thyrian food critics think of the quality of this cheese does not have obvious economic implications.
In that case, the consultant is "objecting to the lawmaker’s introducing into the discussion factors that are not strictly economic."

In order for (C) to be true, the lawmaker would have to mention something that is not strictly economic, and then the consultant would have to object the fact that this was mentioned. Neither one of those happen in the original argument, so (C) is wrong.

Does all this make sense?
Mike

Thank you mikemcgarry for such a detailed analysis. The assumption and evidence explanation in the beginning definitely helped me understand the argument for in depth.

Now I really and truly know the importance of asking good questions.

I will ensure to post such questions from now on!

mikemcgarry generis

As per my views:

since:

the health consequences
and associated economic costs of not rejecting that 1 percent
are negligible,
and also the board’s operating costs
are considerable,
for economic reasons alone

therefore
the board should be disbanded.

In option C:

objecting to the lawmaker’s introducing into the discussion factors that are not strictly economic

Consultant says: I disagree. Does not that mean: Objecting ?
He proceeds to explain reason for disagreement:
The fear of having their shipments rejected may discourage many cheese exporters from shipping substandard product.
Or
If there is no fear of getting shipments rejected, the Chinese exporters may send substandard product.

I do feel this is an non-economic reason that fits well. Can you elaborate gaps in my understanding.

adkikani , you write, “I do feel this is a non-economic reason that fits well.”

Gaps, you ask? I think we have cases of "mistaken identity" and "trap words" here.

Mistaken identity (wrong subject and/or wrong statement):
In Answer C, who allegedly says what?

In Answer C, the lawmaker allegedly brings into the discussion an element that is not strictly economic.
In Answer C, the consultant allegedly objects to this inclusion of an element that is not strictly economic.

You focused on the “not strictly economic” element.
You lost sight of which person introduced that element.
You mistakenly ignored what C requires: the person who brings up the element which is not strictly economic must be the lawmaker.
In your version, the person who brings up that element is the consultant.

Breaking it down further . . .

I can understand why you believe that the board’s threat is a deterrent which can be characterized as a non-economic element.

I would change the descriptor “non-economic” to “not-strictly-economic.” The latter is awkward, but for the moment, that is okay.
I would use “not-strictly-economic” because the threat which deters bad actors from doing bad things does have economic dimensions. (What doesn't?)

When bad actors do not do bad things, Thyria benefits economically.
• Thyrian people do not need medical treatment for illnesses such as listeria and salmonella that can stem from substandard cheese.
• Thyrian lawmakers do not have to institute punishments such as trade sanctions against offending countries. To enforce punishments costs money for personnel.
• The Thyrian economy might suffer if the punished offenders retaliate. (Government officials in the offending country may tell Thyria that Thyria will no longer be able to export its goods into the offending country.)

So let’s say: the consultant brought up the benefit of having an inspection board, whose threat of rejection deters bad actors from doing bad things.
The board’s threat neutralizes harm before it happens.

Now let’s look at the prompt and Option C: The consultant responds to the lawmaker’s argument by . . .
objecting to the lawmaker’s introducing into the discussion factors that are not strictly economic.

You are focused on “factors that are not strictly economic.” Even if I grant that the board’s threat of rejection as a deterrent is a “not strictly economic” factor, C does not characterize how the consultant responds to the lawmaker’s argument.

Why not?
In C, the person who brings into the discussion a different kind of factor is supposed to be the lawmaker.
Did the lawmaker mention the board’s threat as a deterrent to bad actors? No.

Who did mention the different kind of factor, i.e., the board’s threat as a deterrent? The consultant.

Does that fit with C’s description of what happened? NO. You have mixed up the subjects and their statements.

(Worse, if you decide that an element “not strictly economic” got introduced into the discussion, but fail to notice that the consultant was the person who introduced the element, you now have a logical situation imposed by C where the consultant is objecting to something she did herself. Such an objection borders on the absurd.)

Trap words: “I disagree” and “objecting”

From what I'm reading on this thread, I suspect it feels comfortable to link the consultant's statement, "I disagree," to the word "objecting" in Answer C.

Comfortable, unfortunately, is not correct. In fact, it's a trap.
Synonym similarity does not lead to logical accuracy here.

We don’t have to decide exactly what the consultant means by “I disagree.”
(I suggest that she disagrees with the lawmaker’s conclusion that the board should be disbanded. While I can suggest this interpretation, I do not need it to answer this CR question.)

We do not have to decide whether “health consequences” mentioned by the lawmaker are “not strictly economic.”

According to C, we have to decide whether or not the consultant objected to (opposed, quarreled with, argued against) a particular element that the lawmaker mentioned.

The consultant does not oppose any particular element that the lawmaker mentions.
• She says nothing about the “the health consequences and associated economic costs of not rejecting that 1 percent”
• She says nothing about “the board’s operating costs”

The presence or absence of a “not strictly economic” element is irrelevant; the consultant fails to object to all elements mentioned by the lawmaker.

REJECT C. If what I have written has not convinced you to reject C, there is an equally important reason to do so.
Answer C does not account for how the consultant responds to the lawmaker’s argument.
After she says "I disagree," the consultant makes a statement. We cannot ignore that statement.
Further, we must discern how that statement functions as part of the consultant's response to the lawmaker's argument.

The consultant says, “The threat of having their shipments rejected deters many cheese exporters from shipping substandard product.”

Basically, the consultant introduces a beneficial element of having a board, namely, that the board acts as a deterrent. Thus:

Existence of inspection board with rejection power =>
Cheese makers worry about having their cheese rejected =>
Cheese makers are deterred from sending bad cheese.

What do we do with her mention of the board’s threat of rejection as a deterrent to bad actors?
We look for the answer that accurately characterizes that statement.

Is it beneficial to have the board’s presence as a deterrent to bad actors? YES
Is it beneficial that "only 1 percent" gets rejected in part because of this threat? YES
Did the lawmaker, in her argument, mention this benefit? NO. The lawmaker failed to consider this benefit.

That is answer D.

I see your post and question as good news.
I have to backtrack a little to explain why.

Extraordinarily stripped down, we have the following structure:

Person1 says, “Based on evidence X1 and X2, I conclude Y.”

Person2 says, “I disagree. What about evidence X3?”

The good news is that you homed in on X3.
Now, force yourself to attend to all the content presented, and to follow the logic(s) presented.
All content: you would have noticed whether the consultant or the lawmaker allegedly introduced an element outside the economic realm.
Follow the logic: Had you stayed with the logic of the consultant’s words after she said she disagreed (and not gotten a little too distracted by "disagree,") you would have noticed that only one answer characterizes the consultant's words properly.

One final item: please re-read mikemcgarry 's outstanding post here. Pay special attention to the part in green. He gives a hypothetical example in which C would be correct.

I hope this helps.

Hi!

This question type is fairly rare on the GMAT, but one that comes up from time to time.

When we're asked how someone responds, we rarely worry about the actual details of the arguments. Instead, we need to abstract each speech and consider the general form of the response.

So, let's paraphrase each argument.

lawmaker: only 1% of cheese gets rejected; health and economic costs of not rejecting the 1% are negligible; operating cost of board is high; therefore, board should be disbanded.

consultant: boards act as a deterrent; therefore, don't disband.

Our prediction: the consultant doesn't attack the lawmaker's evidence; rather, the consultant raises another argument in support of keeping the board.

The choices:

A) doesn't match our prediction - eliminate!

B) doesn't match our prediction - eliminate!

C) doesn't match our prediction - eliminate!

D) ding ding ding! Pointing out a benefit that the lawmaker failed to consider is a perfect match - choose D!

E) doesn't match our prediction - eliminate!

For method of argument questions (that's what they're called on the LSAT, where they're far more common), the 4 choices will simply not match what the responder did.

NEW Gmatclub Project
Click here

CR63800.03

This was not indexed in Google.

Summary:

1. Key Learning: As per Mike, "Objecting" means here that one should object to any facts or evidence presented for the claim.
The consultant did not do so because he did not address any of the premises of the lawmaker. OG explanation also validates this.

2. "Factors". The consultant has mentioned only one factor. So, for this reason, also, C can be ruled out.