OA seems to be wrong here. The arguments does not compare between the seriousness of various atrocities. It is comparing attitude towards them in developed world against developing/underdeveloped. I would go with C.

Is the answer Correct ? I opted for C.

The OA is given under the spoiler in the original post. For this question it's B.
_________________

B because the argument does mention degrees of atrocities. From this, we can infer some are more opprobius than others.

C cannot be derived.

GMATNinja mikemcgarry abhimahna Maxximus

I think the OA is wrong here. The answer should be C.

The argument says that developing and underdeveloped societies look up to developed societies and treat them as their ideal. Therefore developed societies should not tolerate any degree of atrocities against women.

B. Some atrocities against women are more opprobrious than others.
It is given that the number and the intensity of such atrocities are likely to be lower in developed societies. But that is just a premise and not the overall concern of the argument.

C. Lapse in supporting women in developed societies does not bode well for developing/underdeveloped societies.
Yes IMO this goes well with the whole motive of the argument.

Could you please tell as to why C is wrong. I am not able to find a reason to eliminate this.
_________________

I beg to disagree. The statement from the passage - "After all, developed societies are looked up to as ideal societies, as paving the path for developing and underdeveloped societies, and so should not tolerate any degree of atrocities against women.", clearly allows for deriving C.

Here's how I see this.
Atrocities against women are always unacceptable in any society.
ok - So Atrocities are not acceptable at all

However, it is more important to denounce such acts in developed societies than in developing/underdeveloped societies even though the number and the intensity of such atrocities are likely to be lower in developed societies.
-- Well although they are unacceptable, its more important to denounce them in developed countries.
and why is it so?

After all, developed societies are looked up to as ideal societies, as paving the path for developing and underdeveloped societies, and so should not tolerate any degree of atrocities against women.
-- Here's the reason -
Because Developing countries look up to the developed countries. So developed countries should not tolerate ANY atrocity against women.


Additionally, support for feminist movements often originates in developed societies and the governments in these societies should be more acutely aware of the requirement of their support in case of atrocities against women.
Just add on information..

So what can we infer?
Although atrocity is unacceptable generally, its just cannot happen in a developed country.. and why? Because developing countries consider developed countries as ideal. So we are saying that atrocity in a developed country is really really bad compared to something similar in a developing country.
SO ... we can infer B.. Some atrocities (the one's in developed countries) are more disgraceful than others (in developing countries)

Why did I eliminate C?
we are not really talking whether developed societies support women. Also this comes after the fact (of an atrocity). So atrocity first and then supporting women who suffered .

Here's a similar LSAT argument
https://gmatclub.com/forum/it-is-even-m ... 32955.html

I answered C in my attempt but after reading this again, it seems like B is right.

C - The passage does not tell us how does it go for developing countries if developed countries, which are looked upto, do not support women.

B - The word opprobrious - expressing scorn or criticism (literal meaning) - would support the claim that atrocities against women in developed countries are criticized/should be criticized even more.

Let me know if my understanding is correct. GMATNinja

IMO, If B is right then the argument mean to say that atrocities in developed are more bad than the atrocities of developing. But isn't the argument saying that atrocities in developed are more bad just because it happened in developed.

Say, event X happened with women in both developed and developing. IMO the argument says that since this X happened in developed, it is very bad and need to do something so that it doesn't happen.

The writing here is nothing like what you'd see in a real GMAT question - the question uses language so imprecisely that it's hard to know what most of it means. You also will never need to know what "opprobrious" means on the GMAT (though maybe on the GRE), especially not how they're using it here (they aren't even using its common definition).

Some replies above seem to rule out B because it restates a premise of the argument. But if you're asked what you can infer from a passage, which is what we're asked here, any answer that restates a premise absolutely must be correct. If you saw a CR passage that began:

Annual rainfall in Tazora is 96 inches, etc etc

and you were asked what you could infer, then "It sometimes rains in Tazora" clearly must be true. If that was an answer choice, it would need to be the right answer, even if it essentially restates a premise. Real GMAT CR is not usually that easy, but when it is, don't overthink things!

Answer C might be correct if this were an RC question that asked "what conclusion is the author intending the reader draw from the passage" or some question like that. C is too vaguely worded to be an inference at all (what does "bode well" even mean? "bode well" for whom, and in what respect? It is such a vague phrase that it's almost meaningless). Answer B restates something mentioned in the passage. The word "opprobrious" in its more common usage means "harshly critical", so you might describe an essay or sentence that way. That's not how they're using the word here - they're using its rarer meaning "deserving of harsh criticism". And the stem tells us "it is more important to denounce such acts in developed societies", so some of these acts deserve more criticism than others, according to the passage. So B is a correct inference.
_________________

Dear Friends,

Many participants here are getting this wrong because they are confusing the "ïnference" question here with the "main point" question; some users are even confusing it with a "strengthening" question. Please read the question carefully- it is simply asking "what can be inferred?".

Chef (and few other users) got the crux here in there posts; here is an example with much appreciation for Chef's reasoning...



C cannot be inferred because it talks about "support for women" which is much broader in scope than the context of the passage (which is not tolerating atrocities against women).

Regarding some tutors etc complaining on the lines of a particular word never appearing on GMAT etc- we will like to skip such contests and humbly focus on the larger concepts being discussed and delivered. Thanks.

Here is a brief video explanation-



Hope this helps. Thanks a ton.

Best wishes,
Experts'Global team
_________________

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
_________________