Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Nov 2007:30 AM PST
-08:30 AM PST
Learn what truly sets the UC Riverside MBA apart and how it helps in your professional growth
Nov 2211:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Do RC/MSR passages scare you? e-GMAT is conducting a masterclass to help you learn – Learn effective reading strategies Tackle difficult RC & MSR with confidence Excel in timed test environment- Nov 23
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease. 
Nov 2510:00 AM EST
-11:00 AM EST
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors.
19 Jan 2023, 20:58
Kudos
Bookmarks
Vatsal7794
Hey Vatsal7794,
Happy to help.
Two things:
- Just because the constitution was framed keeping certain objectives in mind, it is not necessary that the constitution actually accomplished those objectives when it was enforced.
- The argument in the last paragraph rests on the assumption that there is a singular majority in the US. Because of this singular majority, comparable to a dictator or a tyrant, all instruments of power and control are vested in the hands of this majority, be it the legislature, the executive, the judiciary, or the public army. In other words, dissent has died a silent death. So, the simplest way to weaken this argument is to divide that majority into multiple, competing majorities. In other words, to introduce dissent. The minute you do that, you create opposition to the ruling majority; and where there is opposition, tyranny is kept under control. This is why simply stating the objectives of the constitution does not weaken the argument. The passage presents us with a development after the implementation of that constitution. We need address this current reality.
For these reasons, choice E is incorrect and B, correct.
I hope this helps.
Happy Learning!
Abhishek
20 Jan 2023, 08:45
Kudos
Bookmarks
Vatsal7794
This is exactly what we want in problem 4, yes.
Quote:
It's not.
Choice E says only that the original Framers WANTED (= "had the concern") to check the absolute power of majorities. Choice E indicates nothing about whether the Framers' Constitution actually accomplished either of these ends.
This is not a small or subtle distinction, by the way. The intent of some behavior is entirely different from the actual results of that behavior—which could end up anywhere from achieving the original intent exactly, to accomplishing the opposite of what was originally intended, or anywhere in between. An action could also have results that are entirely independent of, and therefore irrelevant to, the original intent.
Please note the contrast with choice B, which, if taken as true, gives us something that factually IS true about majorities in the U.S. right now. The pertinence of choice B is thus certain; your only real job with B is to make sure it goes in the direction you actually want (i.e., to double-check that it isn't a WRONG-WAY answer).
20 Jan 2023, 08:59
Kudos
Bookmarks
Just for completeness, I also want to call your attention to one other problematic element of choice E: namely, its complete focus on the Framers of the Constitution—i.e., the Constitution's original writers, who did that work back at the very founding of the United States.
That was almost 250 years ago. The Constitution has changed quite a lot since then; there are now 25 additional amendments in force, above and beyond the original Articles. (26 Amendments have been ratified over time, but one was entirely repealed.)
Those numbers aren't the important part, though; what matters is really just the fact that the Constitution has evolved quite a lot since the late XVIII century. Since the core values/concerns expressed in the last two paragraphs are PRESENT issues, choice E is at very best only partially relevant right from the beginning—before we even consider any specifics! E is only relevant insofar as today's Constitution is still substantively the same as that of the Framers, or at least similar enough to ensure that concerns and values originally expressed in the late XVIIIc are still valid today, and in essentially the same ways with respect to the text.
That's a big ask after 250 years have gone by! So, there's no reason to be terribly confident that issues raised by the Framers are even still issues anymore—let alone to enough of an extent to validate choice E as relevant.
That was almost 250 years ago. The Constitution has changed quite a lot since then; there are now 25 additional amendments in force, above and beyond the original Articles. (26 Amendments have been ratified over time, but one was entirely repealed.)
Those numbers aren't the important part, though; what matters is really just the fact that the Constitution has evolved quite a lot since the late XVIII century. Since the core values/concerns expressed in the last two paragraphs are PRESENT issues, choice E is at very best only partially relevant right from the beginning—before we even consider any specifics! E is only relevant insofar as today's Constitution is still substantively the same as that of the Framers, or at least similar enough to ensure that concerns and values originally expressed in the late XVIIIc are still valid today, and in essentially the same ways with respect to the text.
That's a big ask after 250 years have gone by! So, there's no reason to be terribly confident that issues raised by the Framers are even still issues anymore—let alone to enough of an extent to validate choice E as relevant.
