Council chair: The traditional code of parliamentary procedure con

Question

Council chair: The traditional code of parliamentary procedure contains a large number of obscure, unnecessary rules, which cause us to quibble interminably over procedural details and so to appear unworthy of public confidence. Admittedly, the code is entrenched and widely accepted. But success in our endeavors depends on the public's having confidence in our effectiveness. Therefore, it is imperative that we adopt the alternate code, which has been in successful use elsewhere for several years.

Which one of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the chair's conclusion?

(A) The council's use of the problematic rules in the traditional code is intermittent. 
(B) Those who have adopted the alternate code sometimes attempt to use it to obscure their opponents' understanding of procedures.
(C) Revision of the traditional code is underway that will eliminate the problematic rules. 
(D) It is not always reasonable to adopt a different code in order to maintain the public's confidence. 
(E) The alternate code contains few provisions that have thus far been criticized as obscure or unnecessary.

wonton100 · Answer

Can you please explain why the answer is C? I understand that the revision of the code will eliminate proposed problems, but I thought that it was not the best answer because it doesn't give a timeframe of when the revision will be complete and that public confidence is the key element which affects success of the parliament.

Shadyshades · Answer

Weaken- We should refrain ourselves to adopt the alternate code.

(A) The council's use of the problematic rules in the traditional code is intermittent.
-  It strengthens the argument. It is giving me a reason why i should go for alternate code.

(B) Those who have adopted the alternate code sometimes attempt to use it to obscure their opponents' understanding of procedures.
-  It does talk about disadvantage of alternate code. HOLD ON.

(C) Revision of the traditional code is underway that will eliminate the problematic rules.
-  It does talk about the advantage of traditional code. HOLD ON.

(D) It is not always reasonable to adopt a different code in order to maintain the public's confidence.
- " It is not always" - so we can adopt the alternate code in a few situations or may be in 99.99 % situations. In either case, this option strengthens the argument .

(E) The alternate code contains few provisions that have thus far been criticized as obscure or unnecessary.
-  It strengthens the fact that we should adopt the alternate code.

Between B & C, I rejected B solely on the basis that the alternate code has its drawback only "sometimes". Say 1 in 100 case. It might weaken the argument but very slightly.
If i look at C, it clearly shows that the disadvantages of the traditional code are going to be eliminated. Thus, it's more likely that we don't need the alternate code.

Option C.

HDg · Answer

Can you elaborate why (E) strengthens the conclusion? I thought this AC means the alternate code contains few problems (obscure or uncecessary), so this weakens the conclusion. But option (E) is not as strong as option (C), because it contains "few provisions".

Pls correct me if I'm wrong.

wonton100 · Answer

When you say 'few provisions', it conveys the meaning and impression that 'there are not a lot of' or 'very little' provisions have issues. If the question said 'a few provisions', it would instead mean 'quite a number' of provisions.

HDg · Answer

Hey, thanks for the explaination, it has changed my understanding of this AC. Yep, (E) now strengthens the conclusion.

An78w · Answer

GMATNinja  - Could you pls explain whether option E strengthens or weakens the argument?

jim441 · Answer

Hey correct me if I'm wrong.
So in option C, the presence of "few provisions" indicate that the alternate code has less number of unnecessary provisions whereas it is mentioned that traditional code has large number of obscure provisions. So if we adopt alternate provision then the number of obscure provisions will come to few from large number and thus will lead to strengthening of the argument.

uazo · Answer

To answer this question correctly I used a tip from the PowerScore LSAT Logical Reasoning Bible - Personalize Weaken questions. So answer the question like the Council Chair is speaking to you. Out of the options provided which one would you pick first as a rebuttal to his argument (the conclusion)? When you're ''responding'' to the council chair your goal is to respond in a way that will make them (council chair) reconsider their position. The answer should be pretty clear

I find this approach WAY easier and more efficient than trying to pre-phrase. I hope this helps someone!!

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

Council chair: The traditional code of parliamentary procedure con

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Council chair: The traditional code of parliamentary procedure con

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards