Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
Twelve years ago and again five years ago, there were [#permalink]
28 Feb 2007, 23:57
0% (00:00) correct
0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions
Twelve years ago and again five years ago, there were extended periods when the Darfir Republic's currency, the pundra, was weak: its value was unusually low relative to the world's most stable currencies. Both times a weak pundra made Darfir's manufactured products a bargain on world markets, and Darfir's exports were up substantially. Now some politicians are saying that, in order to cause another similarly sized increase in exports, the government should allow the pundra to become weak again.
Which of the following, if true, provides the government with the strongest grounds to doubt that the politicians' recommendation, if followed, will achieve its aim?
A. Several of the politicians now recommending that the pundra be allowed to become weak made that same recommendation before each of the last two periods of currency weakness,
B. After several decades of operating well below peak capacity, Darfir's manufacturing sector is now operating at near-peak levels.
C. The economy of a country experiencing a rise in exports will become healthier only if the country's currency is strong or the rise in exports is significant.
D. Those countries whose manufactured products compete with Darfir's on the world market all currently have stable currencies.
E. A sharp improvement in the efficiency of Darfir's manufacturing plants would make Darfir's products a bargain on world markets even without any weakening of the pundra relative to other currencies. _________________
"Education is what remains when one has forgotten everything he learned in school."
Can it be both? Seriously, can someone explain what makes E or B a better choice? They both seem to prove that politicians' argument is flawed.
why B is wrong:
the rate at which the manufacturing sector is operating is irrelevant.
The stimulus doesnt even discuss this rate.
Every single GMAT causal conclusion is a flawed argument, because the author assumed that the cause is the only cause for the given effect.
So to weaken a causal conclusion, do 1 of the following.
1) show that an alternate cause results in the effect.
2) show that in the absense of the cause, the effect still occurs
3) show thaT when the cause happens, the effect does not
4) show that the causal relationship is reversed
Thanks, CookieMonster! Do you mind telling us what book you have been using to learn this? I would love to read it!
well i took a Testmasters LSAT class 1 year ago.
So i remember a lot from that.
I recommend that you pick up a copy of the LSAT LR Bible.
I can let you know how the GMAT CR bible compares when i receive it in the mail on monday.