|
|
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.
01 Oct 2015, 00:56
Kudos
Bookmarks
The following appeared in the editorial section of a local newspaper.
“In the first four years that Montoya has served as mayor of the city of San Perdito, the population has decreased and the unemployment rate has increased. Two businesses have closed for each new business that has opened. Under Varro, who served as mayor for four years before Montoya, the unemployment rate decreased and the population increased. Clearly, the residents of San Perdito would be best served if they voted Montoya out of office and reelected Varro.”
Discuss how well reasoned... etc.
The argument claims that the residents of the city of San Perdito should replace current mayor Montoya with former mayor Varro because under Montoya’ tenure the population of the city has decreased and the unemployment rate has increased while during Varro’s office the unemployment rate decreased while the population increased. Stated in this way the argument manipulates facts and conveys a distorted view of the situation. Moreover, the author fails to mentions several key factors, on the basis of which the readers could evaluate the argument. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is rather weak, unconvincing, and has several flaws.
First, the argument readily assumes that the fact that under mayor Montoya the population has decreased while unemployment rate is increased and the number of businesses closing is greater that the those that are opening is a symptom that mayor Montoya has not been able to serve San Perdito’s citizens well. This argument is a stretch because it does not take into account many facts that could help the readers in order to evaluate this claim. For instance, mentioning how the overall economy has been doing during mayor Montoya’s office could be beneficial to understand whether the rise in unemployment rate is due to some exogenous factors or because of mayor Montoya’s mismanagement. Therefore the argument could have been much clearer if it explicitly presented data about the overall economy.
Second, the argument claims that under Varro, the unemployment rate decreased while the population increased. As a consequence, the author jumps to the conclusion that the citizens of San Perdito should reinstate Varro. This is again a very weak and unsupported claim as the argument does not demonstrate any correlation between Varro’s tenure as mayor and the fact that employment and demographics statistics were better that those of Montoya. To illustrate, the author should have provided the reader with evidence supporting those claims, for instance it could have mention whether Varro had taken some initiatives in order to support local businesses or encourage investments in the San Perdito’s economy. If the argument had provided evidence of such initiatives then the argument would have been a lot more convincing.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts about San Perdito’s economy. In order to assess the merits of a certain situation, it is essential to have full knowledge of all contributing factors: in this particular case the author does not provide the reader with many key factors in order to assess the situation. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.
“In the first four years that Montoya has served as mayor of the city of San Perdito, the population has decreased and the unemployment rate has increased. Two businesses have closed for each new business that has opened. Under Varro, who served as mayor for four years before Montoya, the unemployment rate decreased and the population increased. Clearly, the residents of San Perdito would be best served if they voted Montoya out of office and reelected Varro.”
Discuss how well reasoned... etc.
The argument claims that the residents of the city of San Perdito should replace current mayor Montoya with former mayor Varro because under Montoya’ tenure the population of the city has decreased and the unemployment rate has increased while during Varro’s office the unemployment rate decreased while the population increased. Stated in this way the argument manipulates facts and conveys a distorted view of the situation. Moreover, the author fails to mentions several key factors, on the basis of which the readers could evaluate the argument. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is rather weak, unconvincing, and has several flaws.
First, the argument readily assumes that the fact that under mayor Montoya the population has decreased while unemployment rate is increased and the number of businesses closing is greater that the those that are opening is a symptom that mayor Montoya has not been able to serve San Perdito’s citizens well. This argument is a stretch because it does not take into account many facts that could help the readers in order to evaluate this claim. For instance, mentioning how the overall economy has been doing during mayor Montoya’s office could be beneficial to understand whether the rise in unemployment rate is due to some exogenous factors or because of mayor Montoya’s mismanagement. Therefore the argument could have been much clearer if it explicitly presented data about the overall economy.
Second, the argument claims that under Varro, the unemployment rate decreased while the population increased. As a consequence, the author jumps to the conclusion that the citizens of San Perdito should reinstate Varro. This is again a very weak and unsupported claim as the argument does not demonstrate any correlation between Varro’s tenure as mayor and the fact that employment and demographics statistics were better that those of Montoya. To illustrate, the author should have provided the reader with evidence supporting those claims, for instance it could have mention whether Varro had taken some initiatives in order to support local businesses or encourage investments in the San Perdito’s economy. If the argument had provided evidence of such initiatives then the argument would have been a lot more convincing.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts about San Perdito’s economy. In order to assess the merits of a certain situation, it is essential to have full knowledge of all contributing factors: in this particular case the author does not provide the reader with many key factors in order to assess the situation. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.
Moderators:
188 posts
