Summer is Coming! Join the Game of Timers Competition to Win Epic Prizes. Registration is Open. Game starts Mon July 1st.

It is currently 20 Jul 2019, 17:18

Close

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
Your Progress

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

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Contrary to the charges made by some of its opponents, the provisions

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Find Similar Topics 
Math Expert
User avatar
V
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Posts: 56304
Contrary to the charges made by some of its opponents, the provisions  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 31 Aug 2018, 04:04
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  35% (medium)

Question Stats:

73% (02:03) correct 27% (02:12) wrong based on 102 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics


Contrary to the charges made by some of its opponents, the provisions of the new deficit-reduction law for indiscriminate cuts in the federal budget are justified. Opponents should remember that the New Deal pulled this country out of great economic troubles even though some of its programs were later found to be unconstitutional.

The opponents could effectively defend their position against the author’s strategy by pointing out that


(A) the expertise of those opposing the law is outstanding

(B) the lack of justification for the new law does not imply that those who drew it up were either inept or immoral

(C) the practical application of the new law will not entail indiscriminate budget cuts

(D) economic troubles present at the time of the New Deal were equal in severity to those that have led to the present law

(E) the fact that certain flawed programs or laws have improved the economy does not prove that every such program can do so

_________________
Manager
Manager
User avatar
G
Joined: 20 Apr 2018
Posts: 173
Concentration: Technology, Nonprofit
WE: Analyst (Non-Profit and Government)
Re: Contrary to the charges made by some of its opponents, the provisions  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 31 Aug 2018, 10:45
This is one of those classic GMAT problems. The argument type is X has happened in the past, so X will happen again.

Here the weakener is that X may not happen this time. This is what choice E essentially states.

Answer: E
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
G
Joined: 11 Feb 2018
Posts: 280
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Finance
GMAT 1: 690 Q47 V37
GMAT 2: 710 Q50 V36
GMAT 3: 750 Q50 V42
Re: Contrary to the charges made by some of its opponents, the provisions  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 31 Aug 2018, 11:01
Nope.Think its D.We are talking about THIS PARTICULAR LAW.Hence E is out of scope.Also the argument is telling us that this law pulled them out of bad times.hence not E.Not 100% happy with D but.”at the time of the new deal” does not strictly imply AFTER the new deal.But D is the best of the lot.Will be interesting to see the OA and OE

Posted from my mobile device
Retired Moderator
User avatar
G
Joined: 11 Aug 2016
Posts: 375
Reviews Badge
Contrary to the charges made by some of its opponents, the provisions  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post Updated on: 31 Aug 2018, 21:26
Contrary to the charges made by some of its opponents, the provisions of the new deficit-reduction law for indiscriminate cuts in the federal budget are justified. Opponents should remember that the New Deal pulled this country out of great economic troubles even though some of its programs were later found to be unconstitutional.

The opponents could effectively defend their position against the author’s strategy by pointing out that


(A) the expertise of those opposing the law is outstanding
This is no ground for defending an argument. Drop it.

(B) the lack of justification for the new law does not imply that those who drew it up were either inept or immoral
Irrelevant. Drop it.

(C) the practical application of the new law will not entail indiscriminate budget cuts
It already is doing so. irrelevant. Drop it.

(D) economic troubles present at the time of the New Deal were equal in severity to those that have led to the present law
Goes against the opponents. Drop it

(E) the fact that certain flawed programs or laws have improved the economy does not prove that every such program can do so
Perfect. Something flawed has beneficial in the past does not mean that it will again necessarily do so.

Answer: E
_________________
~R.
If my post was of any help to you, You can thank me in the form of Kudos!!
Applying to ISB ? Check out the ISB Application Kit.

Originally posted by GmatDaddy on 31 Aug 2018, 11:42.
Last edited by GmatDaddy on 31 Aug 2018, 21:26, edited 1 time in total.
Manager
Manager
avatar
G
Joined: 30 Dec 2016
Posts: 234
GMAT 1: 650 Q42 V37
GPA: 4
WE: Business Development (Other)
Reviews Badge
Re: Contrary to the charges made by some of its opponents, the provisions  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 31 Aug 2018, 12:17
1
GmatDaddy wrote:
Contrary to the charges made by some of its opponents, the provisions of the new deficit-reduction law for indiscriminate cuts in the federal budget are justified. Opponents should remember that the New Deal pulled this country out of great economic troubles even though some of its programs were later found to be unconstitutional.

The opponents could effectively defend their position against the author’s strategy by pointing out that


(A) the expertise of those opposing the law is outstanding
This is no ground for defending an argument. Drop it.

(B) the lack of justification for the new law does not imply that those who drew it up were either inept or immoral
Irrelevant. Drop it.

(C) the practical application of the new law will not entail indiscriminate budget cuts
It already is doing so. irrelevant. Drop it.

(D) economic troubles present at the time of the New Deal were equal in severity to those that have led to the present law
Goes against the opponents. Drop it

(E) the fact that certain flawed programs or laws have improved the economy does not prove that every such program can do so
Perfect. Something flawed has beneficial in the past does not mean that it will again necessarily do so.

Answer: D


Hi. I guess you wish to choose E but typed D.
_________________
Regards
SandySilva


____________
Please appreciate the efforts by pressing +1 KUDOS (:
Retired Moderator
User avatar
G
Joined: 11 Aug 2016
Posts: 375
Reviews Badge
Re: Contrary to the charges made by some of its opponents, the provisions  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 31 Aug 2018, 21:25
When you answer questions late at night, this is what you do !!
Thanks for pointing it out !!
sandysilva wrote:
GmatDaddy wrote:
Contrary to the charges made by some of its opponents, the provisions of the new deficit-reduction law for indiscriminate cuts in the federal budget are justified. Opponents should remember that the New Deal pulled this country out of great economic troubles even though some of its programs were later found to be unconstitutional.

The opponents could effectively defend their position against the author’s strategy by pointing out that


(A) the expertise of those opposing the law is outstanding
This is no ground for defending an argument. Drop it.

(B) the lack of justification for the new law does not imply that those who drew it up were either inept or immoral
Irrelevant. Drop it.

(C) the practical application of the new law will not entail indiscriminate budget cuts
It already is doing so. irrelevant. Drop it.

(D) economic troubles present at the time of the New Deal were equal in severity to those that have led to the present law
Goes against the opponents. Drop it

(E) the fact that certain flawed programs or laws have improved the economy does not prove that every such program can do so
Perfect. Something flawed has beneficial in the past does not mean that it will again necessarily do so.

Answer: D


Hi. I guess you wish to choose E but typed D.

_________________
~R.
If my post was of any help to you, You can thank me in the form of Kudos!!
Applying to ISB ? Check out the ISB Application Kit.
GMAT Club Bot
Re: Contrary to the charges made by some of its opponents, the provisions   [#permalink] 31 Aug 2018, 21:25
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Contrary to the charges made by some of its opponents, the provisions

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  





Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne