GMAT Question of the Day: Daily via email | Daily via Instagram New to GMAT Club? Watch this Video

 It is currently 17 Feb 2020, 05:18

### 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

# Editorial: The premier s economic advisor assures her that

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Retired Moderator
Joined: 23 Oct 2011
Posts: 196

### Show Tags

Updated on: 06 Aug 2017, 20:52
2
00:00

Difficulty:

5% (low)

Question Stats:

85% (01:39) correct 15% (01:55) wrong based on 262 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

Originally posted by GetThisDone on 26 Jul 2012, 11:10.
Last edited by broall on 06 Aug 2017, 20:52, edited 1 time in total.
Reformatted question
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Nov 2011
Posts: 300

### Show Tags

27 Jul 2012, 17:21
1
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

Intern
Joined: 10 May 2012
Posts: 33

### Show Tags

27 Jul 2012, 16:25
Can some one explain the answers.
Intern
Joined: 09 Oct 2016
Posts: 32

### Show Tags

06 Aug 2017, 20:02
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."
Manager
Joined: 09 Jun 2018
Posts: 105

### Show Tags

14 Oct 2019, 13:49
The official explanation is below:

Flaw. October 2000 LSAT, Section 2, #6. The correct answer choice is (C).

As with all Flaw in the Reasoning questions, you must closely examine the relationship between the
premises and the conclusion. In this argument, the editorial concludes that the advice of the economic
advisor is untrustworthy and “the premier should discard any hope of reducing taxes without a significant
decrease in government services.” What support is offered for this position? Is a discussion of taxation
issued presented? Is a discussion of the cost of government service provided? Is the position of the
economic advisor dissected? No. According to the editorial, the only reason for ignoring the economic
advisor’s advice is that the advisor was convicted in his youth of embezzlement. This fact has no bearing
on the argument made by the advisor, and focuses instead on attacking the person making the argument.
This is a classic Source or ad hominem argument, and you should immediately seek an answer choice that
reflects this fact.

A proposal is not rejected in the stimulus; rather, a goal is advocated by the advisor
and then the author questions whether that goal can be met by examining the background of the advisor.
There is no discussion of a “particular implementation” that is likely to fail.

This answer fails the Fact Test because there is no discussion of “what could happen
otherwise” and no discussion of people’s fears.

This is the correct answer. The answer is a perfect description of a Source argument.

This answer describes an evidence error in which a lack of evidence for a position is
considered to hurt the claim. In the argument, the author improperly used evidence about the advisor, and
this mistake is the error in the argument. Even though this introduced a flaw into the argument, from the
author’s perspective this was an attempt to use evidence against a position to hurt the position. The
editorial did not state or indicate that there was a lack of evidence when forming the conclusion. Put
simply, the editor thought he had a reason that undermined the claim; no argument was made that there
was a lack of evidence.

This answer describes Circular Reasoning. But, because the argument in the stimulus
gives reasons for its position (albeit weak ones), the argument is not circular.

Re: Editorial: The premier s economic advisor assures her that   [#permalink] 14 Oct 2019, 13:49
Display posts from previous: Sort by