Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Apr 2711:00 AM EDT
-12:00 PM EDT
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors
Apr 2808:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
Apr 2912:30 AM EDT
-01:30 AM EDT
Learn how Kamakshi achieved a GMAT 675 with an impressive 96th %ile in Data Insights. Discover the unique methods and exam strategies that helped her excel in DI along with other sections for a balanced and high score.
Apr 3001:30 AM EDT
-02:30 AM EDT
At one point, she believed GMAT wasn’t for her. After scoring 595, self-doubt crept in and she questioned her potential. But instead of quitting, she made the right strategic changes. The result? A remarkable comeback to 695. Check out how Saakshi did it.
May 0111:00 AM PDT
-12:00 PM PDT
Free- full-length test + 15 concept videos + 150+ short videos + study plan!
May 0306:30 AM PDT
-08:30 AM PDT
Verbal trouble on GMAT? Fix it NOW! Join Sunita Singhvi for a focused webinar on actionable strategies to boost your Verbal score and take your performance to the next level.
01 Jan 2013, 21:38
Kudos
Bookmarks
Group #3: Analysis of Argument
It is true that 200 apartment renters protested in the rain about the elimination of rent control regulation. However, there are 20,000 renters in the entire city. 19,800 of them stayed home and did not protest. The group that did not protest is much larger and better represents the opinion of renters throughout the city that the elimination of rent control is not a problem. You should not let the small protest discourage you.
Describe how well reasoned you find this argument. In the discussion be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the argument's conclusion. You may also address possible changes in the argument that would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.
The argument claims that 200 apartment renters protested about the
elimination of rent control regulation,however ,there are 20,000 renters in the
entire city.19,800 stayed home and did not protest.So,the larger group did not
protest and better represents opinion of renters throughout the city that the
elimination is not a problem.Stated in this way the argument fails to mention
several key factors ,on the basis of which the argument could be evaluated.The
conclusion relies upon assumption,for which there are no clear
evidences.Hence,the argument is rather weak,unconvincing,and has several
flaws.
First,the argument readily assumes that there are only 200 renters who
protested about the rent control regulation.The argument by stating this fails to
consider the time frame in which different set of renters could protest.For
instance, 200 renters protested yesterday there could be more protesters on
coming days.So,the statistics may not be true.Furthermore,there could be a
situation where in these 200 protesters represented all 20,000
renters.Clearly,the statement that argument made is a stretch and an
unsubstantiated one.It is more of a wishful thinking than a proper reasoning
given for such a small representation of protesters.The argument could have
been made more sound,had the statistics given looked more justified.
Second,the argument assumes that the figure 19,800 protesters who stayed
home and did not protest are with the elimination of rent control regulation.This
statement is an exaggerated one and can be baseless as there is no rationale
behind it that could be used to prove that the figure who stayed home are with
the elimination of regulation and are not neutral or are protesters, but were not
able to make to the protest.The figure itself doesn't prove that the 19,800
renters were with the elimination of regulation without proper examples and
surveying of the renters about their opinion.This way argument fails to consider
the opinion of 19,800 renters and just assumes that as they wee not able to
make it to the protest implies that they are with the politician's move.
Finally,the argument concludes that the group that did not protest is much
larger and better represents the opinion of renters throughout the city that the
elimination of rent control is not a problem.Argument by stating this fails to
consider other important aspects like surveying of renters who did not make to
the protest,whether they are neutral to the situation,whether they wanted to
protest and were not able to make it to the protest.The conclusion has no legs
to stand on as the argument doesn't provides examples that proves that
19,800 renters were with the elimination of rent control.
Implicitly,the argument is weak for the above stated reasons.It could be
strengthened if author gave proper examples proving that the renters who
stayed home were with the politician's move and not with the protesters.For a
sound argument there should not be any logical gap that exists between
premise and the conclusion.
source: 800 score
Rgds,
Saurabh
It is true that 200 apartment renters protested in the rain about the elimination of rent control regulation. However, there are 20,000 renters in the entire city. 19,800 of them stayed home and did not protest. The group that did not protest is much larger and better represents the opinion of renters throughout the city that the elimination of rent control is not a problem. You should not let the small protest discourage you.
Describe how well reasoned you find this argument. In the discussion be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the argument's conclusion. You may also address possible changes in the argument that would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.
The argument claims that 200 apartment renters protested about the
elimination of rent control regulation,however ,there are 20,000 renters in the
entire city.19,800 stayed home and did not protest.So,the larger group did not
protest and better represents opinion of renters throughout the city that the
elimination is not a problem.Stated in this way the argument fails to mention
several key factors ,on the basis of which the argument could be evaluated.The
conclusion relies upon assumption,for which there are no clear
evidences.Hence,the argument is rather weak,unconvincing,and has several
flaws.
First,the argument readily assumes that there are only 200 renters who
protested about the rent control regulation.The argument by stating this fails to
consider the time frame in which different set of renters could protest.For
instance, 200 renters protested yesterday there could be more protesters on
coming days.So,the statistics may not be true.Furthermore,there could be a
situation where in these 200 protesters represented all 20,000
renters.Clearly,the statement that argument made is a stretch and an
unsubstantiated one.It is more of a wishful thinking than a proper reasoning
given for such a small representation of protesters.The argument could have
been made more sound,had the statistics given looked more justified.
Second,the argument assumes that the figure 19,800 protesters who stayed
home and did not protest are with the elimination of rent control regulation.This
statement is an exaggerated one and can be baseless as there is no rationale
behind it that could be used to prove that the figure who stayed home are with
the elimination of regulation and are not neutral or are protesters, but were not
able to make to the protest.The figure itself doesn't prove that the 19,800
renters were with the elimination of regulation without proper examples and
surveying of the renters about their opinion.This way argument fails to consider
the opinion of 19,800 renters and just assumes that as they wee not able to
make it to the protest implies that they are with the politician's move.
Finally,the argument concludes that the group that did not protest is much
larger and better represents the opinion of renters throughout the city that the
elimination of rent control is not a problem.Argument by stating this fails to
consider other important aspects like surveying of renters who did not make to
the protest,whether they are neutral to the situation,whether they wanted to
protest and were not able to make it to the protest.The conclusion has no legs
to stand on as the argument doesn't provides examples that proves that
19,800 renters were with the elimination of rent control.
Implicitly,the argument is weak for the above stated reasons.It could be
strengthened if author gave proper examples proving that the renters who
stayed home were with the politician's move and not with the protesters.For a
sound argument there should not be any logical gap that exists between
premise and the conclusion.
source: 800 score
Rgds,
Saurabh
13 Jan 2013, 12:12
Kudos
Bookmarks
If 200 people protested in the rain, then it could have been 300 or 1000 in fine weather. You failed to mention rain in your response. Furthermore, usually only a fraction of those disagreeing would protest in the street. If rent control were eliminated in your building, would you approve? (Who would?) But would you protest? Most people wouldn't. 200 people protesting in the rain could well represent 20,000 disagreeing people.
It is not even clear why the argument focuses on the opinions of all renters throughout the city. Presumably, not all buildings were rent-controlled. If we are interested in the opinion of those renters who lived in rent-controlled buildings, then it is possible that there were only 200 of them, and all of them did protest.
Most importantly, what does it mean to say that "the elimination of rent control is not a problem"? It is not clear what the argument is asking. "You should not let the small protest discourage you" - but who are you? Who is making this decision? An elected official? A judge? There is no context given whatsoever. Of course, nobody likes to pay more, but what are the alternatives? Perhaps it is not financially feasible to keep the rent control any further, or perhaps it is.
COMMENTS ABOUT THE RESPONSE.
"First,the argument readily assumes that there are only 200 renters who protested about the rent control regulation." --- well, the argument presents it as given. Of course, the number could be wrong. It is possible that 5683 people protested and we simply have no information. However, let us use the numbers given in the problem statement. 200 people protested, period. "The argument by stating this fails to consider the time frame in which different set of renters could protest." - same thing. We are given that 200 renters protested and 19,800 did not, not that there was a crowd of size 200.
"Stated in this way the argument fails to mention several key factors ,on the basis of which the argument could be evaluated." --- which key factors? Be specific.
"The conclusion relies upon assumption,for which there are no clear evidences." --- which assumptions? Be specific.
"Hence,the argument is rather weak,unconvincing,and has several flaws." --- which flaws? Be specific.
Are you making a distinction between assumptions, factors, and flaws? I feel these three phrases are just a part of your template, and the rest of your essay does not really outline all these factors, assumptions, and flaws. Also "weak, and unconvincing, and has several flaws" sounds out-of-proportion.
In fact, the argument is not that bad. From a practical point of view, imagine that you are some decision-making body. You decide that for one reason or another you really have to remove the rent control. You get 200 people protesting in the rain. Can you ignore them? YES! It may not be the wisest or the best choice, but in practice it is definitely possible to ignore 200 people protesting in the rain. It happens routinely all over the world. So, once again, the argument is not as weak as you are making it look.
"Furthermore,there could be a situation where in these 200 protesters represented all 20,000 renters." --- which situation? Be specific.
"Second,the argument assumes that the figure 19,800 protesters who stayed home and did not protest are with the elimination of rent control regulation." - definitely not. The argument assumes that for them the elimination of rent control is not a problem --- in other words, that they are neutral OR with the elimination OR slightly against it.
"Clearly,the statement that argument made is a stretch and an unsubstantiated one." --- which statement? Be specific.
"Argument by stating this fails to consider other important aspects like surveying of renters who did not make to the protest..." --- technically speaking, surveying is not an ASPECT. It is a possible action or approach, not an aspect or a factor. Furthermore, "who did not make it to the protest" cannot describe the entire 19,800 renters since this expression assumes that they wanted to come, but were unable to, perhaps because of the rain or other circumstances. Once again, we cannot say that 19,800 renters did not make it to the protest. Those who "did not make it to the protest" are by definition against the elimination of rent control regulation.
"Implicitly,the argument is weak for the above stated reasons." - why "Implicitly"? Why not "accidentally" or "explicitly" or "clearly" or "besides"?
"It could be strengthened if author gave proper examples proving that the renters who stayed home were with the politician's move and not with the protesters." --- how can EXAMPLES prove that those who stayed home were with the politician's move and not with the protesters?
Also, if indeed 200 were against and 19,800 with the move, how does it justify the conclusion? In a sense, even one person protesting means there is a problem, doesn't it?
It is not even clear why the argument focuses on the opinions of all renters throughout the city. Presumably, not all buildings were rent-controlled. If we are interested in the opinion of those renters who lived in rent-controlled buildings, then it is possible that there were only 200 of them, and all of them did protest.
Most importantly, what does it mean to say that "the elimination of rent control is not a problem"? It is not clear what the argument is asking. "You should not let the small protest discourage you" - but who are you? Who is making this decision? An elected official? A judge? There is no context given whatsoever. Of course, nobody likes to pay more, but what are the alternatives? Perhaps it is not financially feasible to keep the rent control any further, or perhaps it is.
COMMENTS ABOUT THE RESPONSE.
"First,the argument readily assumes that there are only 200 renters who protested about the rent control regulation." --- well, the argument presents it as given. Of course, the number could be wrong. It is possible that 5683 people protested and we simply have no information. However, let us use the numbers given in the problem statement. 200 people protested, period. "The argument by stating this fails to consider the time frame in which different set of renters could protest." - same thing. We are given that 200 renters protested and 19,800 did not, not that there was a crowd of size 200.
"Stated in this way the argument fails to mention several key factors ,on the basis of which the argument could be evaluated." --- which key factors? Be specific.
"The conclusion relies upon assumption,for which there are no clear evidences." --- which assumptions? Be specific.
"Hence,the argument is rather weak,unconvincing,and has several flaws." --- which flaws? Be specific.
Are you making a distinction between assumptions, factors, and flaws? I feel these three phrases are just a part of your template, and the rest of your essay does not really outline all these factors, assumptions, and flaws. Also "weak, and unconvincing, and has several flaws" sounds out-of-proportion.
In fact, the argument is not that bad. From a practical point of view, imagine that you are some decision-making body. You decide that for one reason or another you really have to remove the rent control. You get 200 people protesting in the rain. Can you ignore them? YES! It may not be the wisest or the best choice, but in practice it is definitely possible to ignore 200 people protesting in the rain. It happens routinely all over the world. So, once again, the argument is not as weak as you are making it look.
"Furthermore,there could be a situation where in these 200 protesters represented all 20,000 renters." --- which situation? Be specific.
"Second,the argument assumes that the figure 19,800 protesters who stayed home and did not protest are with the elimination of rent control regulation." - definitely not. The argument assumes that for them the elimination of rent control is not a problem --- in other words, that they are neutral OR with the elimination OR slightly against it.
"Clearly,the statement that argument made is a stretch and an unsubstantiated one." --- which statement? Be specific.
"Argument by stating this fails to consider other important aspects like surveying of renters who did not make to the protest..." --- technically speaking, surveying is not an ASPECT. It is a possible action or approach, not an aspect or a factor. Furthermore, "who did not make it to the protest" cannot describe the entire 19,800 renters since this expression assumes that they wanted to come, but were unable to, perhaps because of the rain or other circumstances. Once again, we cannot say that 19,800 renters did not make it to the protest. Those who "did not make it to the protest" are by definition against the elimination of rent control regulation.
"Implicitly,the argument is weak for the above stated reasons." - why "Implicitly"? Why not "accidentally" or "explicitly" or "clearly" or "besides"?
"It could be strengthened if author gave proper examples proving that the renters who stayed home were with the politician's move and not with the protesters." --- how can EXAMPLES prove that those who stayed home were with the politician's move and not with the protesters?
Also, if indeed 200 were against and 19,800 with the move, how does it justify the conclusion? In a sense, even one person protesting means there is a problem, doesn't it?
Moderator:
