Counselor: Those who believe that criticism should be gentle rather

I understand why A is correct but why is B incorrect?

B is wrong because we do not care what the primary goal of something; we do not care about motivation. Further, and I think this is where you are struggling, just because something isn't false doesn't make it true. We need our answer to describe the flaw, not weaken the argument (and this may not even do that). But either way, it doesn't describe the flaw in the argument.
_________________

This is a difficult "method of reasoning" question.

Hi nightblade354, I understand that change is a sufficient condition, and motive is a necessary condition (i.e. change -> motive). The author seems to correlate harsh/unpleasant criticism with motive, correct? And then the author "flips" sufficient and necessary condition logic by concluding that unpleasant criticism will cause change, that is, he basically says that criticism = motive -> change.

Is my explanation correct?

I mistakenly picked C as an answer choice and frankly I cannot find out why it is incorrect...

Thanks for your help in advance.

The counselor's central points are that for a person to change, a motive is required and that this motive is only (harsh) criticism. The counselor concludes with the strong statement that ONLY such criticism will cause change in a person.

Notice that the counselor has made a strong point in stating that "Only" harsh criticism will cause change.

We are asked to find the flaw in the reasoning of the counselor. That is, any point that weakens the counselor's above points will be the correct answer.

(A) infers that something that is sufficient to provide a motive is necessary to provide a motive

CORRECT

This statement makes the point that the counselor's reasoning is improper because although harsh criticism may be necessary for change, it may not be sufficient for change. That is, there may be other conditions needed for change to occur.

(B) fails to address the possibility that in some cases the primary goal of criticism is something other than bringing about change in the person being criticized

INCORRECT

There may well be other primary goals of criticism. This point is not made by the counselor. The counselor's point refers to the value of harsh criticism for producing change in the person criticized.

(C) takes for granted that everyone who is motivated to change will change

INCORRECT

Again, this point is not directly made by the counselor. The counselor does not directly assume (or take for granted) that motivated people will change. The counselor's main point is that only harsh criticism is the right motive for change.

(D) confuses a motive for doing something with a motive for avoiding something

INCORRECT

This answer makes irrelevant points. The counselor has not confused a motive for change with a motive for avoiding something.

(E) takes the refutation of an argument to be sufficient to show that the argument’s conclusion is false

INCORRECT

The counselor is only refuting the point that criticism should be gentle and offers an alternative perspective about the value of a different form of criticism. There is no stated direct conclusion flowing from "gentle criticism". The stem statement's main points relate to the counselor's views on the value of harsh criticism towards motivation for change in person.

Hi Hovkial, I wonder why you say that we need to weaken author's reasoning



nightblade354 says that we are required to find a flaw rather than weaken the argument. These two things are somewhat related, and I am hoping for a fruitful discussion

mykrasovski,

For your analysis, you are a little off. The argument says Change --> Motive then says Harsh Criticism --> Unpleasant Criticism --> Motive

Concluding that Change --> Harsh Criticism, so it mistakes the fact that two things are sufficient to trigger motive that one triggers the other (sufficiency necessity confusion).

This argument is not about weakness, so that analysis from Hovkial is not accurate.

And lastly, (C) is incorrect because it says Motive --> Change, which is not what our argument does.
_________________

The word "Weakness" was used colloquially. A weak argument is one which is not tenable due to multiple reasons.

Note that this use of the word weakness is somewhat different from the more formal type of question: "Which of the folliowing, if true, most weakens...."?

I cannot comment on anyone else' use of different terms including nightblade354 . Please feel free to discuss with them. Thanks.

Hovkial, thanks for clarifying. I assumed that you might have used the word "weaken" in a broader sense, i.e. weaken = flaw = unsound.

nightblade354 your help is appreciated.

Hovkial, in GMAT terms, weaken means to make an argument less strong. As it is a question type, you have to be careful with your wording, especially when posting a response.
_________________

Counselor: Those who believe that criticism should be gentle rather than harsh should consider the following: change requires a motive, and criticism that is unpleasant provides a motive. Since harsh criticism is unpleasant, harsh criticism provides a motive. Therefore, only harsh criticism will cause the person criticized to change.

The reasoning in the counselor’s argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument

(A) infers that something that is sufficient to provide a motive is necessary to provide a motive - CORRECT.

(B) fails to address the possibility that in some cases the primary goal of criticism is something other than bringing about change in the person being criticized - WRONG. There might be exceptions that "some" may stand for. Also, primary goal is irrelevant.

(C) takes for granted that everyone who is motivated to change will change - WRONG. It's not about everyone but in general.

(D) confuses a motive for doing something with a motive for avoiding something - WRONG. Altogether irrelevant.

(E) takes the refutation of an argument to be sufficient to show that the argument’s conclusion is false - WRONG. Where is the refutation?

As per passage
motive leads to change
M ----> Ch
But
uC ----> M
However,
hC = uC
hC ----> M
Therefore, eventually
hC(only) ----> Ch

Further it seems to give an impression that
hC(only) ----> M ----> Ch

Here using "only" suggests that there is no other alternative to "hC", which, in a way, is bit on the extreme side as further assumptions are required to be made. Had "only" not been there, it would still have made sense. This is basically what A says.

Answer A.
_________________

Should not the answer be :

infers that something that is necessary to provide a motive is sufficient to provide a motive

instead of :

infers that something that is sufficient to provide a motive is necessary to provide a motive

FYI : nightblade354

please explain the logic used to come to choice A, as I am unable to visualize the passage in terms of the logic expressed in option A