gmat1393 generis aragonn VeritasKarishma nightblade354 Abhishek009I am stuck between A and C.
Quote:
Ross: The profitability of Company X, restored to private ownership five years ago, is clear evidence that businesses will always fare better under private than under public ownership.
Ross's claim: businesses will always fare better under private than under public ownership.
Ross's evidence: 5 years ago, ownership changed from public to private. Hence cause (private ownership) -> effect (higher profits)
Quote:
Julia: Wrong. A close look at the records shows that X has been profitable since the appointment of a first-class manager, which happened while X was still in the pubic sector.
Julia disputes Ross's claim. Her evidence: A closer look suggests that not ownership, but how manager managed the show contributed to profits.
Quote:
Which of the following best describes the weak point in Ross’s claim on which Julia’s response focuses?
What is weakener in Ross's claim?
Quote:
(A) The evidence Ross cites comes from only a single observed case, that of Company X.
Yes, see jump from a particular company X to all general businesses.
Quote:
(B) The profitability of Company X might be only temporary.
Irrelavant. Time duration of company is not our agenda, the cause leading to profits is the one where are concerned with.
Quote:
(C) Ross’s statement leaves open the possibility that the cause he cites came after the effect he attributes to it.
I found too complex to comprehend what this option is saying. There is no sequence of cause that Julia pointed out as flaw.
In fact, she pointed out alternate cause (better management) than ownership.
Quote:
(D) No mention is made of companies that are partly government owned and partly privately owned.
Irrelavant to scope of argument.
Quote:
(E) No exact figures are given for the current profits of Company X
We are not concerned with exact profit numbers, we are concerned with the cause that led to higher profits.