GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 21 Jan 2019, 20:42

### 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

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

## Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in January
PrevNext
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
303112345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
272829303112
Open Detailed Calendar
• ### GMAT Club Tests are Free & Open for Martin Luther King Jr.'s Birthday!

January 21, 2019

January 21, 2019

10:00 PM PST

11:00 PM PST

Mark your calendars - All GMAT Club Tests are free and open January 21st for celebrate Martin Luther King Jr.'s Birthday.
• ### The winners of the GMAT game show

January 22, 2019

January 22, 2019

10:00 PM PST

11:00 PM PST

In case you didn’t notice, we recently held the 1st ever GMAT game show and it was awesome! See who won a full GMAT course, and register to the next one.

# Confusing CR regarding Politicians as expected

Author Message
Senior Manager
Joined: 29 Oct 2008
Posts: 350
Location: United States
Concentration: Marketing, Technology
Confusing CR regarding Politicians as expected  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

Updated on: 26 Oct 2013, 07:52
1
00:00

Difficulty:

25% (medium)

Question Stats:

76% (01:42) correct 24% (01:43) wrong based on 125 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Politician P: My opponent claims that the government is obligated to raise taxes to increase funding for schools and health care. Because raising taxes to increase funding for schools and health care would make taxpayers upset over their loss of buying power, my opponent is simply mistaken.
Politician P's reasoning is questionable because it involves
(A) presupposing that a claim is mistaken on the grounds that the person defending it advocates other unpopular views
(B) assuming that a claim is false on the grounds that the person defending it is of questionable character
(C) concluding that a view is false on the grounds that its implementation would lead to unhappiness
(D) appealing to wholly irrelevant issues to deflect attention away from the real issue
(E) insisting that an obligation exists without offering any evidence that it exists

Why or Why not A?

Originally posted by joshnsit on 25 Oct 2013, 16:06.
Last edited by joshnsit on 26 Oct 2013, 07:52, edited 1 time in total.
SVP
Joined: 04 May 2006
Posts: 1656
Schools: CBS, Kellogg
Re: Confusing CR regarding Politicians as expected  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Oct 2013, 16:53
joshnsit wrote:
Politician P: My opponent claims that the government is obligated to raise taxes to increase funding for schools and health care. Because raising taxes to increase funding for schools and health care would make taxpayers upset over their loss of buying power, my opponent is simply mistaken.
Politician P's reasoning is questionable because it involves
(A) presupposing that a claim is mistaken on the grounds that the person defending it advocates other unpopular views
(B) assuming that a claim is false on the grounds that the person defending it is of questionable character
(C) concluding that a view is false on the grounds that its implementation would lead to unhappiness
(D) appealing to wholly irrelevant issues to deflect attention away from the real issue
(E) insisting that an obligation exists without offering any evidence that it exists

Why or Why not A?

The argument does not say "other unpopular views", furthermore, A implies that the conclusion of the main argument is unpopular.
_________________
Manager
Joined: 22 Apr 2013
Posts: 88
Location: India
Concentration: Finance
GMAT 1: 660 Q48 V33
Re: Confusing CR regarding Politicians as expected  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Oct 2013, 18:25
IMO C.

(A) presupposing that a claim is mistaken on the grounds that the person defending it advocates other unpopular views--- Incorrect because we dont know whether funding for schools and health care is unpopular.
(B) assuming that a claim is false on the grounds that the person defending it is of questionable character--- There is nothing stated about the character of the opponent.
(C) concluding that a view is false on the grounds that its implementation would lead to unhappiness--- CORRECT, because this is exactly what Politician P says. He rejects the funding because it would make the public upset.
(D) appealing to wholly irrelevant issues to deflect attention away from the real issue--- We have no information whether funding is the real issue. Funding could also be an irrelevant issue.
(E) insisting that an obligation exists without offering any evidence that it exists--- The opponent claims that the government has an obligation not Politician P. Politician P never says that government has an obligation to do anything.
Senior Manager
Joined: 29 Oct 2008
Posts: 350
Location: United States
Concentration: Marketing, Technology
Re: Confusing CR regarding Politicians as expected  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Oct 2013, 21:05
sondenso wrote:
joshnsit wrote:
Politician P: My opponent claims that the government is obligated to raise taxes to increase funding for schools and health care. Because raising taxes to increase funding for schools and health care would make taxpayers upset over their loss of buying power, my opponent is simply mistaken.
Politician P's reasoning is questionable because it involves
(A) presupposing that a claim is mistaken on the grounds that the person defending it advocates other unpopular views
(B) assuming that a claim is false on the grounds that the person defending it is of questionable character
(C) concluding that a view is false on the grounds that its implementation would lead to unhappiness
(D) appealing to wholly irrelevant issues to deflect attention away from the real issue
(E) insisting that an obligation exists without offering any evidence that it exists

Why or Why not A?

The argument does not say "other unpopular views", furthermore, A implies that the conclusion of the main argument is unpopular.
Cant I say "other unpopular views = 1) raising taxes to increase funding for schools & 2) raising taxes to increase funding for healthcare"?
I am sorry but I couldn't understand how conclusion("my opponent is simply mistaken") of argument of Politician P is unpopular. Pls elaborate.
Senior Manager
Joined: 29 Oct 2008
Posts: 350
Location: United States
Concentration: Marketing, Technology
Re: Confusing CR regarding Politicians as expected  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Oct 2013, 21:11
akashb106 wrote:
IMO C.

(A) presupposing that a claim is mistaken on the grounds that the person defending it advocates other unpopular views--- Incorrect because we dont know whether funding for schools and health care is unpopular.
(B) assuming that a claim is false on the grounds that the person defending it is of questionable character--- There is nothing stated about the character of the opponent.
(C) concluding that a view is false on the grounds that its implementation would lead to unhappiness--- CORRECT, because this is exactly what Politician P says. He rejects the funding because it would make the public upset.
(D) appealing to wholly irrelevant issues to deflect attention away from the real issue--- We have no information whether funding is the real issue. Funding could also be an irrelevant issue.
(E) insisting that an obligation exists without offering any evidence that it exists--- The opponent claims that the government has an obligation not Politician P. Politician P never says that government has an obligation to do anything.
Shouldn't people be unhappy and upset (as mentioned by you in explanation of C) because of an unpopular view (as mentioned in your explanation of A) of raising taxes?

I see words unhappy/upset in choice C as much as unpredictable and non-inferential as the word unpopular in choice A. Please let me know if I am missing any pieces here.
Manager
Status: Joining Cranfield Sep 2014
Joined: 01 Sep 2012
Posts: 52
Concentration: Technology, General Management
GMAT 1: 530 Q50 V14
GMAT 2: 630 Q48 V29
WE: Engineering (Energy and Utilities)
Re: Confusing CR regarding Politicians as expected  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Oct 2013, 21:31
My opponent claims that the government is obligated to raise taxes to increase funding for schools and health care – Opponents view – premise

Because raising taxes to increase funding for schools and health care would make taxpayers upset over their loss of buying power – Politician Claim to refute Opponent’s Claim

Conclusion – My opponent is simply mistaken.

Which answer choice will weaken the reasoning of Politician P:-

Choice A – presupposing that a claim(Opponent’s Claim, premise-1) is mistaken on the grounds that the person defending it advocates other unpopular views - raising funds for school and health care are not unpopular views, the argument does not indicate any thing about this, so Choice A is incorrect.

Choice B – assuming that a claim is false on the grounds that the person defending it is of questionable character - Out of Scope, the opponent is not a questionable character, so Choice B is incorrect.

Choice C - concluding that a view is false on the grounds that its implementation would lead to unhappiness – This choice is mentioned in the argument, so this should be the answer, Choice C is correct.

Choice D - appealing to wholly irrelevant issues to deflect attention away from the real issue – It is not mentioned that loss of buying power is irrelevant issue, so this choice is out of scope.

Choice E - insisting that an obligation exists without offering any evidence that it exists – Out of Scope

Correct Choice should be C
Manager
Status: Joining Cranfield Sep 2014
Joined: 01 Sep 2012
Posts: 52
Concentration: Technology, General Management
GMAT 1: 530 Q50 V14
GMAT 2: 630 Q48 V29
WE: Engineering (Energy and Utilities)
Re: Confusing CR regarding Politicians as expected  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Oct 2013, 21:41
joshnsit wrote:
akashb106 wrote:
IMO C.

(A) presupposing that a claim is mistaken on the grounds that the person defending it advocates other unpopular views--- Incorrect because we dont know whether funding for schools and health care is unpopular.
(B) assuming that a claim is false on the grounds that the person defending it is of questionable character--- There is nothing stated about the character of the opponent.
(C) concluding that a view is false on the grounds that its implementation would lead to unhappiness--- CORRECT, because this is exactly what Politician P says. He rejects the funding because it would make the public upset.
(D) appealing to wholly irrelevant issues to deflect attention away from the real issue--- We have no information whether funding is the real issue. Funding could also be an irrelevant issue.
(E) insisting that an obligation exists without offering any evidence that it exists--- The opponent claims that the government has an obligation not Politician P. Politician P never says that government has an obligation to do anything.
Shouldn't people be unhappy and upset (as mentioned by you in explanation of C) because of an unpopular view (as mentioned in your explanation of A) of raising taxes?

I see words unhappy/upset in choice C as much as unpredictable and non-inferential as the word unpopular in choice A. Please let me know if I am missing any pieces here.

The argument in its premise -2 mentions the word "upset" so where is the question of unpredicable and non-inferential.

From premise-1 you cannot inferred that raising tax for funding school and health care is unpopular, also no where in the argument you will get this clue, the analysis should be limited to the scope mentioned in the argument.
Manager
Joined: 22 Apr 2013
Posts: 88
Location: India
Concentration: Finance
GMAT 1: 660 Q48 V33
Re: Confusing CR regarding Politicians as expected  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Oct 2013, 21:46
joshnsit wrote:
akashb106 wrote:
IMO C.

(A) presupposing that a claim is mistaken on the grounds that the person defending it advocates other unpopular views--- Incorrect because we dont know whether funding for schools and health care is unpopular.
(B) assuming that a claim is false on the grounds that the person defending it is of questionable character--- There is nothing stated about the character of the opponent.
(C) concluding that a view is false on the grounds that its implementation would lead to unhappiness--- CORRECT, because this is exactly what Politician P says. He rejects the funding because it would make the public upset.
(D) appealing to wholly irrelevant issues to deflect attention away from the real issue--- We have no information whether funding is the real issue. Funding could also be an irrelevant issue.
(E) insisting that an obligation exists without offering any evidence that it exists--- The opponent claims that the government has an obligation not Politician P. Politician P never says that government has an obligation to do anything.
Shouldn't people be unhappy and upset (as mentioned by you in explanation of C) because of an unpopular view (as mentioned in your explanation of A) of raising taxes?

I see words unhappy/upset in choice C as much as unpredictable and non-inferential as the word unpopular in choice A. Please let me know if I am missing any pieces here.

Hey,

Why I eliminated A is because the passage does not suggest popularity of the views. It could be that funding of schools and health care could be popular or unpopular. At the same time the politician claim of not supporting the funding could be popular or unpopular.
We have no information that can help us judge which view (politician's or opponent's) is unpopular and which is popular.

C on the other hand is directly stated in the passage that the implementation would lead to unhappiness. Unhappiness=upset is what the tax payer feels with the loss of buying power.

Hope it helps.
SVP
Joined: 04 May 2006
Posts: 1656
Schools: CBS, Kellogg
Re: Confusing CR regarding Politicians as expected  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Oct 2013, 23:56
joshnsit wrote:
sondenso wrote:
joshnsit wrote:
Politician P: My opponent claims that the government is obligated to raise taxes to increase funding for schools and health care. Because raising taxes to increase funding for schools and health care would make taxpayers upset over their loss of buying power, my opponent is simply mistaken.
Politician P's reasoning is questionable because it involves
(A) presupposing that a claim is mistaken on the grounds that the person defending it advocates other unpopular views
(B) assuming that a claim is false on the grounds that the person defending it is of questionable character
(C) concluding that a view is false on the grounds that its implementation would lead to unhappiness
(D) appealing to wholly irrelevant issues to deflect attention away from the real issue
(E) insisting that an obligation exists without offering any evidence that it exists

Why or Why not A?

The argument does not say "other unpopular views", furthermore, A implies that the conclusion of the main argument is unpopular.
Cant I say "other unpopular views = 1) raising taxes to increase funding for schools & 2) raising taxes to increase funding for healthcare"?
I am sorry but I couldn't understand how conclusion("my opponent is simply mistaken") of argument of Politician P is unpopular. Pls elaborate.

Actually, A implies that the conclusion/view of the opponent is unpopular. Sory for that. And maybe you get the point that PP raises only one view, not more than 1 view, so where are "other views"?. Furthermore, PP does not say which view is popular and which others are unpopular?
_________________
Senior Manager
Joined: 29 Oct 2008
Posts: 350
Location: United States
Concentration: Marketing, Technology
Re: Confusing CR regarding Politicians as expected  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Oct 2013, 07:49
sondenso wrote:
joshnsit wrote:
sondenso wrote:
The argument does not say "other unpopular views", furthermore, A implies that the conclusion of the main argument is unpopular.
Cant I say "other unpopular views = 1) raising taxes to increase funding for schools & 2) raising taxes to increase funding for healthcare"?
I am sorry but I couldn't understand how conclusion("my opponent is simply mistaken") of argument of Politician P is unpopular. Pls elaborate.

Actually, A implies that the conclusion/view of the opponent is unpopular. Sory for that. And maybe you get the point that PP raises only one view, not more than 1 view, so where are "other views"?. Furthermore, PP does not say which view is popular and which others are unpopular?
@sodenso, I hope you meant : A) presupposing that a claim(raising taxes to increase funding for schools and health care) is mistaken on the grounds that the person defending it (Politician's opponent) advocates other unpopular views

I couldnt cancel A just because of views because I split the justified the provided view in premise as 1) raising taxes to increase funding for schools & 2) raising taxes to increase funding for healthcare".
I might have overthought on this, but not sure if my approach was wrong.

Got the point.. I definitely missed "upset" in Premise 2 and realized this with your comments.
I shouldn't have considered causal relationship between upset and unpopular. Upset and Unhappy(in C) clearly resonates with each other.

OA is C.
Manager
Joined: 13 Apr 2017
Posts: 57
Re: Confusing CR regarding Politicians as expected  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 May 2017, 23:17
the question is easy but I just complicate it.
Intern
Joined: 19 Dec 2018
Posts: 48
Re: Confusing CR regarding Politicians as expected  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Dec 2018, 03:25
The argument's conclusion is that the politician's opponent is simply mistaken. The evidence for this claim is that people would be unhappy with it. The flaw here is that just because people would be unhappy with something, doesn't it make it the wrong thing to do. So, Choice C correctly describes the absurd reasoning in the stimulus.
Re: Confusing CR regarding Politicians as expected &nbs [#permalink] 19 Dec 2018, 03:25
Display posts from previous: Sort by