12 Days of Christmas GMAT Competition - Day 6: A local library has

1o There is no analogy, eliminate 1.
2a There is no counter-analogy, eliminate 2.
Now choose from the remaining options.

Patron 1's argument: [color=#000000]Emphasizes the personal impact the policy has on individual patrons.[/color]
[color=#000000]Patron 2's argument: Suggests the policy is a reasonable compromise given the library's constraints.[/color]

On analyzing the given options, it is pretty clear that there is no analogy or parallel being drawn with any other situation in this particular case & since the first two options explicitly deal with analogies we can eliminate them as they are not relevant to this particular context & can be eliminated for both the arguments.

For the first argument it is pretty clear that there are now two possible options option 3-Emphasizes the personal impact the policy has on individual patrons & option 5-Asserts the exception for students is not justified by their unique needs..

Of these options 5 is a narrower in scope as it deals with only aspect of the patron's grievance & that too is not super clear hence it can be eliminated as the answer.

Hence option 3 is correct as far as Patron 1's argument goes as it brings to light the personal impact that the library's plan would have on the patrons.

As an effective rebuttal of Patron 1's argument, Patron 2's argument suggests that the policy is a reasonable compromise given the library's constraints, which falls in line with the way the argument of Patron 2 talks about how the library with all of its limited resources needs to balance the needs of all patrons

Hence the correct answers are-

Patron 1's argument-Emphasizes the personal impact the policy has on individual patrons.


Patron 2's argument- Suggests the policy is a reasonable compromise given the library's constraints.

Background :
A local library has recently implemented a new policy that limits the number of books patrons can borrow at one time. The policy states that a patron may only check out up to 5 books at a time, with the exception of students enrolled in university courses who are allowed to check out up to 10 book

Patron 1: "The new policy is unreasonable. Many of us use the library to supplement our home book collections, and a limit of 5 books is not enough to satisfy our reading needs. Even with the exception for university students, it doesn't seem fair to discriminate based on academic status."

this Draws an analogy to highlight the unfairness of the policy. As patron 1 says that a limit in reading needs is unreasonable and unfair to dicriminate based of acedemic status

Patron 2: "I understand the frustration, but the library likely implemented this policy to ensure broader access to their collection. With limited resources, they need to balance the needs of all patrons. The higher limit for students makes sense, as they often have more intensive reading requirements for their coursework."

This suggests the policy is a reasonable compromise given the library's constraints. Because as it say that with limited resources they need to balance the needs of all patrons so it is reasonable to limit the access

Patron 1 says that the reason for it being unreasonable is due to personal needs but also highlights the discrimination against regular patrons. This would indicate "Asserts the exception for students is not justified by their unique needs".

Patron 2 says that despite understanding Patron 1's statements, the library intends to provider greater access to everyone and simultaneously balance everyone's necessities. This indicated "Suggests the policy is a reasonable compromise given the library's constraints".

Statements that can be tagged to Patron 1:

1. Draws an analogy to highlight the unfairness of the policy - Patron 1 is not making any comparison to highlight the unfairness of the policy - Out
2. Emphasizes the personal impact the policy has on individual patrons. - Yes, Patron 1 highlights that many patrons use the library to supplement their home book collections - Keep
3. Asserts the exception for students is not justified by their unique needs - Patron 1 states that the exception for students is not justified by their academic status and by not unique needs - Out

Statements that can be tagged to Patron 2:
1. Counters the analogy with a different perspective - Since Patron 1 is not drawing an analogy, Patron 2 cannot counter the analogy - Out
2. Suggests the policy is a reasonable compromise given the library's constraints - Yes, Patron 2 highlights that the library has limited resources and that they need to balance the needs of all patrons - Keep

No analogy presented. So A & B not possible.
C. Yes. Patron 1 says many individuals may not be satisfied.
D. Yes. Patron 2 tries to justify.
E. No. This is what patro2 gives as justification.

Answer C & D

A local library has recently implemented a new policy that limits the number of books patrons can borrow at one time. The policy states that a patron may only check out up to 5 books at a time, with the exception of students enrolled in university courses who are allowed to check out up to 10 books.

Patron 1: "The new policy is unreasonable. Many of us use the library to supplement our home book collections, and a limit of 5 books is not enough to satisfy our reading needs. Even with the exception for university students, it doesn't seem fair to discriminate based on academic status."

Patron 2: "I understand the frustration, but the library likely implemented this policy to ensure broader access to their collection. With limited resources, they need to balance the needs of all patrons. The higher limit for students makes sense, as they often have more intensive reading requirements for their coursework."

In the first column, indicate a statement that describes how Patron 1 develops their objection to the library's policy. In the second column, indicate a statement that describes how Patron 2 responds to Patron 1's argument.
Patron 1's argument Patron 2's argument
Draws an analogy to highlight the unfairness of the policy.
Counters the analogy with a different perspective.
Emphasizes the personal impact the policy has on individual patrons.
Suggests the policy is a reasonable compromise given the library's constraints.
Asserts the exception for students is not justified by their unique needs.


Patron 1- yes patron 1 talks about personal impact

Patron 2 - suggests it’s a reasonable compromise given the constraints since he acknowledges what patron 1 said and talks about the constraints

I would say:

Patron 1's argument: Emphasizes the personal impact the policy has on individual patrons.
The new policy is unreasonable. Many of us use the library to supplement our home book collections, and a limit of 5 books is not enough to satisfy our reading needs. Even with the exception for university students, it doesn't seem fair to discriminate based on academic status

Patron 2's argument: Suggests the policy is a reasonable compromise given the library's constraints
I understand the frustration, but the library likely implemented this policy to ensure broader access to their collection. With limited resources, they need to balance the needs of all patrons. The higher limit for students makes sense, as they often have more intensive reading requirements for their coursework

Patron 1: Emphasizes the personal impact the policy has on individual patrons
Patron 2: Suggests the policy is a reasonable compromise given the library's constraints

Neither uses an analogy, so we can eliminate the first two options for both. Patron 1 emphasizes the personal impact through referencing how "many of us use the library to supplement our home book collections" and "5 books is not enough to satisfy our reading needs." Patron 2 responds by pointing out that the library has "limited resources" but they need to "balance the needs of all patrons" which is their suggestion of the policy being a reasonable compromise given the library's constraints. Patron 1 seems to assert the exception for students is not justified by saying how "it doesn't seem fair to discriminate based on academic status," but this is just an objection to what they think is discrimination, and they don't say that students needing more books is unjustified.

Patron 1 is objecting by citing personal impact on him and other patron like him, although he does bring up the fact of exception for students but that is to supplement his main objection, which was the impact on the patrons. Hence sentence (3)

Patron 2 takes much of an empathetic stance by signifying the constraints the library has regarding the resources and also taking care of the needs of students who are being given an exception. IMO Sentence (4)

Answer (3) and (4) IMO

Hi All,

Ans for Patron 1's argument- Emphasizes the personal impact the policy has on individual patrons.

As Patron 1 says that " Many of us use the library to supplement our home book collections, and a limit of 5 books is not enough to satisfy our reading needs"



Ans for Patron 2's argument - Suggests the policy is a reasonable compromise given the library's constraints.

As Patron 2 tells that " [color=#0f0f0f]The higher limit for students makes sense, as they often have more intensive reading requirements for their coursework."[/color]

Patron's 1 argument -

Draws an analogy to highlight the unfairness of the policy.

P1 doesn't draw any analogy. Hence, we can eliminate this.

Counters the analogy with a different perspective.

P1 counters the policy, not an analogy. Hence, we can eliminate this.

Emphasizes the personal impact the policy has on individual patrons.

P1 emphasizes the impact of the policy. Hence, we can keep this.

Suggests the policy is a reasonable compromise given the library's constraints.

Incorrect as P1 feels that the policy is unreasonable.

Asserts the exception for students is not justified by their unique needs.

Incorrect. As P1 doesn't mention this.

Patron's 2 argument -

Draws an analogy to highlight the unfairness of the policy.

P2 doesn't draw any analogy. Hence, we can eliminate this.

Counters the analogy with a different perspective.

P2 counters P1. But not an analogy. Eliminate.

Emphasizes the personal impact the policy has on individual patrons.

Incorrect. As P1 emphasizes on the need for the policy. Eliminate.

Suggests the policy is a reasonable compromise given the library's constraints.

Correct. P1 suggests that the policy is required to ensure broader access to their collection. Keep.

Asserts the exception for students is not justified by their unique needs.

Incorrect, no such mention was made.

Answers:

Patron 1's argument : Emphasizes the personal impact the policy has on individual patrons.

Patron 2's argument : Suggests the policy is a reasonable compromise given the library's constraints.

Patron one emphasises the impact the policy will have on the the individuals like himself. last option is tricky but it can be eliminated as patron 1 does not say anything about the students' unique needs but only talks about their academic status.
Patron 2 argues that it is justified based on the limited resources of the library.

Patron 1: Emphasizes the personal impact the policy has on individual patrons.
Patron 1 expresses frustration with the 5-book limit, specifically how it affects patrons who rely on the library to supplement their home collections. The argument centers on the personal impact and unmet reading needs.

Relevant Portion:

Patron 2: Suggests the policy is a reasonable compromise given the library's constraints.
Patron 2 counters by acknowledging the frustration but framing the policy as a necessary response to the library’s limited resources. He explains that the policy balances the needs of all patrons and is a compromise to ensure broad access.

Relevant Portion:

Patron 1's Argument:

• What They Say: The 5-book limit is too low for people who use the library a lot, and it's unfair to give university students a higher limit.
• How They Argue:
  
  • Option Selected: Emphasizes the personal impact the policy has on individual patrons.
  • Explanation: Patron 1 focuses on how the 5-book limit affects their own and others' reading needs.

Patron 2's Argument:

• What They Say: The library sets the limits to make sure everyone can access books, and giving students more books makes sense because they need them for studies.
• How They Argue:
  
  • Option Selected: Suggests the policy is a reasonable compromise given the library's constraints.
  • Explanation: Patron 2 explains that the policy balances limited resources and different needs, making it a fair solution.

Answer:

• Patron 1's argument: Emphasizes the personal impact the policy has on individual patrons.
• Patron 2's argument: Suggests the policy is a reasonable compromise given the library's constraints.

Draws an analogy to highlight the unfairness of the policy.
noone is drawing an analogy in the discussion

Counters the analogy with a different perspective.
noone is drawing an analogy in the discussion

Emphasizes the personal impact the policy has on individual patrons
P1 seems to be doing this when he mentions the individual needs

Suggests the policy is a reasonable compromise given the library's constraints
P2 seems to be doing this as a reply to P1, specifically mentioning "constraints"

Asserts the exception for students is not justified by their unique needs.
Noone is doing this.

Answer: P1: Emphasizes the personal impact the policy has on individual patrons
P2: Suggests the policy is a reasonable compromise given the library's constraints

Patron 1 objects to the policy by pointing out how the policy affects people and why is it not justified. They also tells that discrimination based on students or not is not justified.

Patron 2 replies by presenting a different point of view to the same topic and explains why the library has to implement the policy given it’s current situation.

Options A and B capture exactly that.