Can anyone explain the reasoning behind choosing option c over b?

Answer should be B.

During Economic slowdown expenditure should remain equal or decrease than normal economic condition. But in this case the average expenditure has gone up albeit Govt stopped sanctioning(funding) new projects. How is that possible? Remember the rule of average. Average will go up if the low value terms are removed from the list. Not clear!!!??? Let us take one example. Say the Govt spends 1$ in 5$ to 5 projects. So average expenditure is 3$.Now if Govt stops funding 2 low budgeted projects(1$ and 2$) the average will go up to 4$.

Option B says the same.

On the contrary , option C says Crucial Projects(irrelevant) continue to receive funds from Govt. This suggests Govt spends same amount to the crucial projects during economic slowdown as compared with normal condition. How does this information help us in getting the average expenditure? Are we getting any idea about other projects(non crucial)?

Hope it helps.

Waiting for good explanation why b wrong and c right

Posted from my mobile device

In option b it is unclear that whether the low budget project are sanctioned or still to be sanctioned,while option c clears it by using continue

Posted from my mobile device

Because of the economic slowdown, there is a large drop in the number of new projects sanctioned by the government. At the same time, the average spending per project has gone up.

Which one of the following, if true, best explains the increase in the average spending per project?

A) The project spending by the government had risen over the last few years before the economic slowdown.
B) Owing to the economic slowdown, many low-budget government projects have been shelved.
C) Crucial projects in larger public interest continue to receive government funding.
D) The economy is expected to slip further in the coming few months.
E) Economic slowdown has made the government refocus on its priorities, pushing projects lower in the list.




Though I would agree 'Sanctioned' would have made the Option B airtight, But I dont think there is still any option better than that, more so Option C

low budget Projects are shelved --> It means they are not funded as of now and hence only high budgets are funded and hence the AVERAGE spending gone up

in option C - Crucial Projects in larger project does not automatically means Costly projects or thats what I believe

IMO - B is still better option

Why is Option C the correct answer ,especially when compared to option B?

So according to me, B cannot be right because, the argument says "Because of the economic slowdown, there is a large drop in the number of new projects sanctioned by the government. At the same time, the average spending per project has gone up." which means that there is a drop in number of new sanctions.
Consider that there were 90 projects initially each with average budget x dollars, and say previous year the government has sanctioned a 10 more, making the total no. of projects 100 and average budget y dollars.
Now, y could be greater or lesser than x, based on the budget of the 10 new projects.

From the argument, we know that there is a drop in new sanctions. So consider that there were 5 sanctions this time(which is a drop from previous number i.e. 10), making the total as 105 projects and average budget say z dollars.

Option B) Owing to the economic slowdown, many low-budget government projects have been shelved.
says that of the 100 previous projects, that were sanctioned previously before economic slow down, the low budget ones are removed. This cannot give any solid explanation or evidence for the fact that there is an increase in average budget of the projects on right now. This can help only if we are sure of the fact that incoming 5 projects(which is after a drop in no. of incoming projects sanctioned) have an average budget more than the "low-budget" projects that are shelved.


Having said that, I still am not completely convinced why C is the right choice because it doesn't draw a sound connection between "Critical" and budget of the project.

VIDEO EXPLANATION FROM Experts' Global

_________________

For me it is still vague and unclear
consider this- "talking about option B it tells that low budgeted products are shelved and also new projects are not sanctioned by the government."
very simple example-cost of projects earlier 50,40,30,20 its average cost is around 35{50+40+30+
20/4}
but when some low budgets are shelved say 30 and 20 be eliminated so the average of 50 and 40 is 45 which is in fact greater than earlier... this solves the problem...
BUT, now lets look at the option C it talks about that some crucial project in public interest continued to receive government funding remember.
now,keeping one thing in mind is that these projects are the old ones and not new projects and also it doesn't mention whether they are low budgeted.. so accordingly the average cost should remain same because no new ones are sanctioned but the average cost increases it doesn't clear how the average increases. SO FOR ME B IS STILL STRONG OVER C....PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW MY REASONING IS WRONG??

Hi, this is one of the query already posted in discussion. I also have the same query.

VeritasKarishma , GMATNinja Pl clarify.
"
in option C - Crucial Projects in larger project does not automatically means Costly projects or thats what I believe

IMO - B is still better option"

ExpertsGlobal

Hi ExpertGlobal

As per your video explanation, it still doesn't make sense why C is correct. For example, there are 5 projects-
1) 1000 USD
2) 1000 USD
3) 1000 USD
4) 100 USD
5) 100 USD

The average is- 640 USD

Now according to C,

"Crucial projects in larger public interest continue to receive government funding"

First of all, it is never said that Crucial projects are costly, they could be just of 100 USD, but even if we assume, that crucial projects are of 1000 USD.
And they continue to receive funding, still, it never said that these are new projects, so if there is no new project and they are old projects, there won't be any change in average.

Also, it never states that old small projects had discontinued, thus again, not increasing the average.

But B clearly increases the average.

VeritasKarishma egmat

Your take please?

Ok, I checked with the latest question on expert's global,

I guess this is the old one.

The latest updated question is-

Because of the economic slowdown, there is a large drop in the number of projects sanctioned by the government. At the same time, the average spending per project has gone up.

Which one of the following, if true, best explains the increase in the average spending per project?

A) The project spending by the government had risen over the last few years before the economic slowdown.
B) Owing to the economic slowdown, many low-budget government projects have been shelved.
C) Crucial projects in larger public interest, which are always high in budget, continue to receive government funding.
D) The economy is expected to slip further in the coming few months.
E) Economic slowdown has made the government refocus on its priorities, pushing projects lower in the list.

With this answer should be C

i don't know if you guys are still asking this but C is chosen over B b/c of the following:

Because of the economic slowdown, there is a large drop in the number of new projects sanctioned by the government. At the same time, the average spending per project has gone up.

Which one of the following, if true, best explains the increase in the average spending per project?

B) Owing to the economic slowdown, many low-budget government projects have been shelved. Response: sure economic slow down may have caused low-budget projects to be cut but why cause an increase that non affected project ?

C) Crucial projects in larger public interest continue to receive government funding. Crucial projects will still be worked on as they are crucial and they will continue to receive funding. The funding is now more because these projects need to be completed whereas others can be tossed

Yes, the answer is not clear here.
New projects are not being taken up. So new projects are not impacting the average expense.

Average spending per project has gone up, not the overall spending on projects.

B) Owing to the economic slowdown, many low-budget government projects have been shelved.

Makes sense provided the high-budget projects have continued.

Avg spending per project = Total spending/Number of projects

When low budget projects are cut, total spending doesn't reduce by too much but number of projects does become lower. So average will be expected to go up.

C) Crucial projects in larger public interest, which are always high in budget, continue to receive government funding.

Makes sense provided low in budget projects are cut (as explained above).

Hence (B) and (C) together will explain that avg has gone up.

If I had to choose one, I will choose (B) because it tells me that low budget projects are cut. I will assume that everything else stays the same so high budget projects are continuing. Hence average expense per project has gone up.
But if I am told that high budget projects are continuing, it doesn't tell me whether low budget projects are cut or not. If anything, I need to assume that everything else stays the same so why should the average spending INCREASE?
_________________