Editorial: Our provinceS legislature will soon vote on a measure that

Question

Editorial: Our province's legislature will soon vote on a measure that would allow government employee unions to bargain over wages. Some critics claim this measure would increase wages and thus exacerbate our province's budget deficit. But in fact, it would probably reduce the deficit. The province immediately north of ours allows such union bargaining, and its budget deficit is lower than our province's—and lower than it was before the province allowed union bargaining.

The editorial's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on which of the following grounds?

A. It fails to adequately address the possibility that many factors affect provincial budget deficits.

B. It confuses a claim about the budget deficit in one province with a similar claim about the deficit in another, neighboring province.

C. It overlooks the possibility that the budget deficit of the province immediately to the north was higher before that province allowed the union bargaining.

D.It takes for granted that if the measure reduces the budget deficit, then it will not increase wages of government employees.

E. It fails to adequately distinguish a factual claim about the measure's likely consequences from a value judgment that the measure should be enacted.

(source: GMAT focus online prep Exam1)

MartyMurray · Accepted Answer

Editorial: Our province's legislature will soon vote on a measure that would allow government employee unions to bargain over wages. Some critics claim this measure would increase wages and thus exacerbate our province's budget deficit. But in fact, it would probably reduce the deficit. The province immediately north of ours allows such union bargaining, and its budget deficit is lower than our province's—and lower than it was before the province allowed union bargaining.

The conclusion of the argument is the following:

it (a measure that would allow government employee unions to bargain over wages) would probably reduce the deficit

The support for the conclusion is the following:

The province immediately north of ours allows such union bargaining, and its budget deficit is lower than our province's—and lower than it was before the province allowed union bargaining.

So, the argument uses the fact that another province allows union bargaining and has a budget deficit that is lower than that of "our province" and is lower than it was before union bargaining to support the conclusion that the budget deficit of "our province" would probably decrease as a result of allowing union bargaining.

The editorial's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on which of the following grounds?

This is a Flaw question, and the correct answer will describe a flaw in the argument.

A. It fails to adequately address the possibility that many factors affect provincial budget deficits.

The argument does exactly what this choice describes.

Let's review the evidence the argument uses to support the conclusion that the measure would probably reduce the deficit.

The province immediately north of ours allows such union bargaining, and its budget deficit is lower than our province's

This premise provides some support for the conclusion. At the same time, there could be many other factors that underlie the difference in budget deficits. So, the cause of the difference may not be that one province allows union bargaining whereas the other doesn't.

The province immediately north of ours allows such union bargaining, and its budget deficit is ...and lower than it was before the province allowed union bargaining.

Even this outcome could be the result of many factors other than allowing union bargaining.

In general, the fact that a province allows union bargaining and has a lower deficit doesn't necessarily mean that the first is the cause of the second.

So, we can see that, having used that evidence to support the conclusion, the argument is vulnerable to the criticism that "It fails to adequately address the possibility that many factors affect provincial budget deficits."

Keep.

B. It confuses a claim about the budget deficit in one province with a similar claim about the deficit in another, neighboring province.

This choice is incorrect because the argument simply doesn't do what it describes.

After all, the argument doesn't make a similar claim about the other province: it doesn't make the claim that a measure to allow union bargaining in the other province probably will, in the future, reduce the other provinces's deficit.

Also, the argument doesn't confuse any claims with each other.

Eliminate.

C. It overlooks the possibility that the budget deficit of the province immediately to the north was higher before that province allowed the union bargaining.

This choice is counterfactual.

After all, the argument actually says, "The province immediately north of ours allows such union bargaining, and its budget deficit is ... lower than it was before the province allowed union bargaining."

The stated fact that the budget deficit of province immediately to the north is lower than it was before the province allowed union bargaining means that the budget deficit of province immediately to the north was higher before it allowed union bargaining.

So, the argument clearly does not overlook "the possibility that the budget deficit of the province immediately to the north was higher before that province allowed the union bargaining."

Eliminate.

D.It takes for granted that if the measure reduces the budget deficit, then it will not increase wages of government employees.

The argument does not involve the conclusion or require the assumption that "if the measure reduces the budget deficit, then it will not increase wages of government employees."

After all, the argument works as long as the measure would reduce the deficit, regardless of what else goes on.

So, it doesn't take the idea mentioned by this choice for granted since it doesn't involve or rely on that idea.

Eliminate.
 
 E. It fails to adequately distinguish a factual claim about the measure's likely consequences from a value judgment that the measure should be enacted.

This choice is incorrect because the argument simply doesn't do what it describes.

After all, the argument doesn't involve any "value judgment that the measure should be enacted." Rather, it simply makes a claim about the measure's likely consequences without getting into any value judgment.

Eliminate.

Correct answer:  A

kakarot10 · Answer

It's a weaken question, and therefore the given conclusion of the passage is to be considered. The conclusion of the passage is that another region 1 did X and it resulted in Y, and thus we (in region 2) too should do X to get Y. However factors affecting budget deficit could be different in the 2 regions therefore answer is A . It weakens the arguments conclusion

RowdyHowdy · Answer

thanks! but how about B ? it also looks like a right answer.

Fish181 · Answer

A. It fails to adequately address the possibility that many factors affect provincial budget deficits.

- This says that you can't compare the two cities "apples to apples" so this is the correct answer because it's true.;

B. It confuses a claim about the budget deficit in one province with a similar claim about the deficit in another, neighboring province.

- it doesn't confuse the claim. It clearly mentions that there was a separate city north of them with the same problem that had a budget deficit. If you don't see this then you're not comprehending what the answer choice is telling you.

C. It overlooks the possibility that the budget deficit of the province immediately to the north was higher before that province allowed the union bargaining.

-It clearly states that the city north of them had a higher budget deficit before they enacted the law. So no.

D. It takes for granted that if the measure reduces the budget deficit, then it will not increase wages of government employees.

- That's not what's being asked here and is out of scope. Who cares? If it goes up or down it doesn't weaken the argument or strengthen it.

E. It fails to adequately distinguish a factual claim about the measure's likely consequences from a value judgment that the measure should be enacted.

- This one just tries to confuse you and hopes you pick it because it sounds confusing. I don't know what a value judgement is and I doubt you do either if you're reading this. But the part you should focus on is that it says "it fails to adequately distinguish a factual claim about the consequences." Well that just isn't true. It clearly states what it thinks will happen if it's enacted.

whatsarc · Answer

Weird, I saw this question on third official test and you saw it on the first?

I thought the question pool were seperate for 1/2 and 3/4.

Deepak23gmat · Answer

KarishmaB  Can you please help understand this.

KarishmaB · Answer

Premises:

Some critics claim that union bargaining would increase wages and thus exacerbate our province's budget deficit. 
The province immediately north of ours allows such union bargaining, and its budget deficit is lower than our province's—and lower than it was before the province allowed union bargaining.

Conclusion:   It would probably reduce the deficit.

The question stem asks us for a flaw in the reasoning. In these questions pre-thinking helps. What is the flaw in the logic here? Because the north province's deficit reduced after allowing union bargaining, the argument is assuming that the same will happen here. The very first issue with that is that we are not given that their deficit reduced because union bargaining reduced expense (and that other things stayed constant). The causality is not given. Their deficit could have reduced because of various other factors. We are not even given what impact union bargaining had on union's budget. It is possible that union bargaining even increased the deficit but other factors led to an overall decrease in the deficit.

A. It fails to adequately address the possibility that many factors affect provincial budget deficits.

Correct. It fails to address the possibility that many factors combine to give the budget deficit. Just because two things happened in sequence, it doesn't mean one led to the other.

B. It confuses a claim about the budget deficit in one province with a similar claim about the deficit in another, neighboring province.
  
The only claim given is "this measure would increase wages and thus exacerbate our province's budget deficit". No such claim about the deficit in another, neighboring province has been mentioned. The author only mentions what actually happened in another, neighboring province.

C. It overlooks the possibility that the budget deficit of the province immediately to the north was higher before that province allowed the union bargaining. 
  
The author actually tells us that the budget deficit of the province immediately to the north was higher before that province allowed the union bargaining. It is not something he has overlooked

D.It takes for granted that if the measure reduces the budget deficit, then it will not increase wages of government employees. 
  
The author does not talk about wages at all. He doesn't say whether the wages will increase or decrease etc.

E. It fails to adequately distinguish a factual claim about the measure's likely consequences from a value judgment that the measure should be enacted. 
  
We do not know whether the claim given is "factual claim" (can be proven to be true or false). Hence we cannot say that the author's argument is flawed on this account. This is not the flaw that we can identify in this argument.

Answer (A)

arushi118 · Answer

Why is B a wrong option for the question?

egmat · Answer

Correct Answer: A 
The editorial argues that allowing union bargaining will reduce the deficit because the northern province has union bargaining and a lower deficit. The flaw? It assumes union bargaining caused the lower deficit without considering other factors like economic growth, tax policy, or spending cuts.

Why Not B 
"Confusing claims" means  mixing up which province is which —like saying something about Province A but treating it as Province B. But the editorial is crystal clear throughout: "our province" stays ours, "the province north of us" stays theirs. There's no identity mix-up.

What the editorial actually does wrong: 
It makes a lazy assumption: "Northern province has union bargaining + lower deficit → union bargaining must have caused it."
But what if their economy boomed? What if they raised taxes or cut spending? The editorial ignores all these possibilities. That's the real flaw—it's not confused about which province is which, it just  fails to consider alternative explanations .

The key distinction: 
 
 Confusion (B) = mixing up identities 
 Incomplete reasoning (A) = ignoring alternative causes

Quick test:  Does the author ever lose track of which province is which? No. So it's not B.

Editorial: Our provinceS legislature will soon vote on a measure that

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

Editorial: Our provinceS legislature will soon vote on a measure that

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