It is currently 24 Sep 2017, 00:09

### 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

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# Editorial: The premier s economic advisor assures her that

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Verbal Forum Moderator
Joined: 23 Oct 2011
Posts: 280

Kudos [?]: 938 [2], given: 23

### Show Tags

26 Jul 2012, 12:10
2
KUDOS
00:00

Difficulty:

5% (low)

Question Stats:

82% (01:24) correct 18% (01:23) wrong based on 227 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Editorial: The premier’s economic advisor assures her that with the elimination of wasteful spending the goal of reducing taxes while not significantly decreasing government services can be met. But the premier should not listen to this advisor, who in his youth was convicted of embezzlement. Surely his economic advice is as untrustworthy as he is himself, and so the premier should discard any hope of reducing taxes without a significant decrease in government services.

Which one of the following is a questionable argumentative strategy employed in the editorial’s argument?

a) rejecting a proposal on the grounds that a particular implementation of the proposal is likely to fail
b) trying to win support for a proposal by playing on people’s fears of what could happen otherwise
c) criticizing the source of a claim rather than examining the claim itself
d) taking a lack of evidence for a claim as evidence undermining the claim
e) presupposing what it sets out to establish

Main CR Qs link - http://gmatclub.com/forum/cr-qs-600-700 ... 31508.html
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

_________________

********************
Push +1 kudos button please, if you like my post.

Last edited by broall on 06 Aug 2017, 21:52, edited 1 time in total.
Reformatted question

Kudos [?]: 938 [2], given: 23

Manager
Joined: 10 May 2012
Posts: 62

Kudos [?]: 28 [0], given: 3

### Show Tags

27 Jul 2012, 17:25
Can some one explain the answers.

Kudos [?]: 28 [0], given: 3

Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Nov 2011
Posts: 303

Kudos [?]: 1192 [1], given: 2

### Show Tags

27 Jul 2012, 18:21
1
KUDOS
Expert's post
The editorial maintains that the premier should not trust the economic advisor based on the economic advisor's prior unseemliness. What the editorial does not do is address what is wrong with the economic advisor's plan (this is a classic ad hominem - or attack the man - fallacy). Only (C) captures this fallacy.

a) rejecting a proposal on the grounds that a particular implementation of the proposal is likely
to fail

The editorial does not address the proposal itself.

b) trying to win support for a proposal by playing on people’s fears of what could happen
otherwise

Does not talk about people's fears.

c) criticizing the source of a claim rather than examining the claim itself

d) taking a lack of evidence for a claim as evidence undermining the claim

Again, the editorial does not address the advisor's plan, and thus it never mentions a lack of evidence of that plan.

e) presupposing what it sets out to establish

The editorial does not presuppose that the proposal is not valid. It simply attacks the advisor's past record.
_________________

Christopher Lele
Magoosh Test Prep

Kudos [?]: 1192 [1], given: 2

Intern
Joined: 09 Oct 2016
Posts: 18

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 9

### Show Tags

06 Aug 2017, 21:02
GetThisDone wrote:
Editorial: The premier’s economic advisor assures her that with the elimination of wasteful
spending the goal of reducing taxes while not significantly decreasing government services
can be met. But the premier should not listen to this advisor, who in his youth was convicted
of embezzlement. Surely his economic advice is as untrustworthy as he is himself, and so the
premier should discard any hope of reducing taxes without a significant decrease in
government services. Which one of the following is a questionable argumentative strategy
employed in the editorial’s argument?
a) rejecting a proposal on the grounds that a particular implementation of the proposal is likely
to fail
b) trying to win support for a proposal by playing on people’s fears of what could happen
otherwise
c) criticizing the source of a claim rather than examining the claim itself
d) taking a lack of evidence for a claim as evidence undermining the claim
e) presupposing what it sets out to establish

Main CR Qs link - http://gmatclub.com/forum/cr-qs-600-700 ... 31508.html

This type of argument called " ad hominem", "in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself."

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 9

Re: Editorial: The premier s economic advisor assures her that   [#permalink] 06 Aug 2017, 21:02
Display posts from previous: Sort by