Gamba: Muñoz claims that the Southwest Hopeville Neighbors Association

Question

Competition Mode Question

Gamba: Muñoz claims that the Southwest Hopeville Neighbors Association overwhelmingly opposes the new water system, citing this as evidence of citywide opposition. The association did pass a resolution opposing the new water system, but only 25 of 350 members voted, with 10 in favor of the system. Furthermore, the 15 opposing votes represent far less than 1 percent of Hopeville’s population. One should not assume that so few votes represent the view of the majority of Hopeville’s residents.

Of the following, which one most accurately describes Gamba’s strategy of argumentation?

Of the following, which one most accurately describes Gamba’s strategy of argumentation?

(A) questioning a conclusion based on the results of a vote, on the grounds that people with certain views are more likely to vote

(B) questioning a claim supported by statistical data by arguing that statistical data can be manipulated to support whatever view the interpreter wants to support

(C) attempting to refute an argument by showing that, contrary to what has been claimed, the truth of the premises does not guarantee the truth of the conclusion

(D) criticizing a view on the grounds that the view is based on evidence that is in principle impossible to disconfirm

(E) attempting to cast doubt on a conclusion by claiming that the statistical sample on which the conclusion is based is too small to be dependable

madgmat2019 · Answer

(E) attempting to cast doubt on a conclusion by claiming that the statistical sample on which the conclusion is based is too small to be dependable..............This is inline with the argument...because the 15 opposing votes represent far less than 1 percent of Hopeville’s population.......which is too small to conclude based on this this sample..

OA:E

OA:E

exc4libur · Answer

ARGUMENT
  association voted to oppose the new system - this represents citywide opposition;
  of 350 members, 25 voted, 10 were in favor and 15 opposed (less than 1% of residents);
  those that voted against cannot represent the view of the majority residents.

(A) nope;
(B) nope, the problem is the representation of that data;
(C) irrelevant;
(D) nope;

Ans (E)

Archit3110 · Answer

Conclusion:
One should not assume that so few votes represent the view of the majority of Hopeville’s residents.
IMO E is correct 
attempting to cast doubt on a conclusion by claiming that the statistical sample on which the conclusion is based is too small to be dependable
as the option is on the lines of argument The association did pass a resolution opposing the new water system, but only 25 of 350 members voted, with 10 in favor of the system. Furthermore, the 15 opposing votes represent far less than 1 percent of Hopeville’s population

Gamba: Muñoz claims that the Southwest Hopeville Neighbors Association overwhelmingly opposes the new water system, citing this as evidence of citywide opposition. The association did pass a resolution opposing the new water system, but only 25 of 350 members voted, with 10 in favor of the system. Furthermore, the 15 opposing votes represent far less than 1 percent of Hopeville’s population. One should not assume that so few votes represent the view of the majority of Hopeville’s residents.

Of the following, which one most accurately describes Gamba’s strategy of argumentation?

Of the following, which one most accurately describes Gamba’s strategy of argumentation?

(A) questioning a conclusion based on the results of a vote, on the grounds that people with certain views are more likely to vote

(B) questioning a claim supported by statistical data by arguing that statistical data can be manipulated to support whatever view the interpreter wants to support

(C) attempting to refute an argument by showing that, contrary to what has been claimed, the truth of the premises does not guarantee the truth of the conclusion

(D) criticizing a view on the grounds that the view is based on evidence that is in principle impossible to disconfirm

(E) attempting to cast doubt on a conclusion by claiming that the statistical sample on which the conclusion is based is too small to be dependable

eakabuah · Answer

The right answer is E in my view.

Premise: Muñoz claims that the Southwest Hopeville Neighbors Association overwhelmingly opposes the new water system, citing this as evidence of citywide opposition.
Counter-Premise: The association did pass a resolution opposing the new water system, but only 25 of 350 members voted, with 10 in favor of the system.
Counter-premise: Furthermore, the 15 opposing votes represent far less than 1 percent of Hopeville’s population.
Conclusion: One should not assume that so few votes represent the view of the majority of Hopeville’s residents.

From the conclusion, Gamba states that one should not assume that so few votes represent the view of the majority of the Hopeville's residents. In order words, he is suggesting that 25 out of the total 350 members of the Hopeville Neighbours Association is not significant to represent the views of the majority, which should be at least 176 members. This conclusion casts doubts on the claims by Munoz that members of Southwestern Neighbors Association overwhelmingly oppose the new water system. His conclusion is based on two counter-premises that focus on relatively small number of members who took part in the vote.

Scanning through the answer choices, only E states that he attempts to cast doubt on a conclusion by claiming that the statistical sample on which the conclusion is based is too small to be dependable. This is rightly the argumentation strategy adopted by Munoz.

unraveled · Answer

Gamba: Muñoz claims that the Southwest Hopeville Neighbors Association overwhelmingly opposes the new water system, citing this as evidence of citywide opposition. The association did pass a resolution opposing the new water system, but only 25 of 350 members voted, with 10 in favor of the system. Furthermore, the 15 opposing votes represent far less than 1 percent of Hopeville’s population. One should not assume that so few votes represent the view of the majority of Hopeville’s residents.
Of the following, which one most accurately describes Gamba’s strategy of argumentation?

(A) questioning a conclusion based on the results of a vote, on the grounds that people with certain views are more likely to vote

(B) questioning a claim supported by statistical data by arguing that statistical data can be manipulated to support whatever view the interpreter wants to support

(C) attempting to refute an argument by showing that, contrary to what has been claimed, the truth of the premises does not guarantee the truth of the conclusion

(D) criticizing a view on the grounds that the view is based on evidence that is in principle impossible to disconfirm

(E) attempting to cast doubt on a conclusion by claiming that the statistical sample on which the conclusion is based is too small to be dependable

The part of argument 'far less than 1 percent of Hopeville’s population' is similar to 'too small to be dependable'. With the argument taking the statistical data to base its counter claim, Gamba explains why the opposition is not reasonable.

IMO Answer E.

ManifestDreamMBA · Answer

Hi experts, Can someone please explain why E and C is correct? my thoughts below:

Gamba refuted the argument on the basis of the 15 people who voted against and not the 350 or 25, which was the statistical sample size. Hence I didn't pick E and instead picked C, which mentions even though the premises are true, the conclusion doesn't hold.

This may be a poor question but I want to understand if there is a gap in my understanding or it indeed is the case

DmitryFarber · Answer

First, keep in mind that while this is a valid question, it's from the LSAT and is not very representative of what we have to do on the GMAT.

I also found C tempting, in that it seems hard to deny. After all, pretty much any time we try to refute an argument, we are saying that the premise doesn't lead to the conclusion. In real life, we often disagree by denying the given premises, but that's not normally a path we can take on the GMAT (or the LSAT). From that perspective, C seems like it has to be a correct description of what Gamba is doing.

The trick, however, is in the details. First, let's look at the word "refute." This can be to disprove, or simply to deny, someone's argument. Notice that Gamba doesn't actually do either. They simply say that we can't be sure that this vote represents the citywide opposition that Muñoz claims. That doesn't mean there  isn't  citywide opposition, just that it isn't proven by this one bit of evidence.

Speaking of evidence, what evidence did Muñoz actually produce? They just say that the SHNA overwhelmingly opposes the measure, but they don't provide any further support for that claim. In other words, their premise is an opinion without any factual support. All the relevant facts are provided by Gamba. Therefore, it's not quite right to say that Gamba is saying "the truth of your premise doesn't guarantee the truth of your conclusion." Rather, Gamba is saying "you don't have a good basis for your premise." So Gamba really is attacking a premise. At least, they're saying "Here's some more data that may lead you to wonder whether that premise is correct AND whether it really leads to the conclusion."

In short, C doesn't correctly describe what's happening because a) Gamba doesn't directly refute Muñoz's argument and b) Gamba is doing more than attacking the link between premise and conclusion. They are also questioning the initial premise that Muñoz provides.

You can map it this way:

Muñoz: 
Premise: SHNA overwhelmingly opposes measure 
Conclusion: There is citywide opposition to measure

Gamba: 
Premise: Only 15 out of 350 members opposed, and that's only 1% of city population
Conclusion: This vote may not reflect city majority

Gamba's premise undermines the "overwhelming opposition" part of Munoz's premise AND the connection to "citywide opposition" in E. Both of these are pointing out sampling flaws, so E makes sense.

MartyMurray · Answer

Gamba: Muñoz claims that the Southwest Hopeville Neighbors Association overwhelmingly opposes the new water system, citing this as evidence of citywide opposition. The association did pass a resolution opposing the new water system, but only 25 of 350 members voted, with 10 in favor of the system. Furthermore, the 15 opposing votes represent far less than 1 percent of Hopeville’s population. One should not assume that so few votes represent the view of the majority of Hopeville’s residents.

Of the following, which one most accurately describes Gamba’s strategy of argumentation?

Of the following, which one most accurately describes Gamba’s strategy of argumentation?

This is a Method of Reasoning question, and the correct answer must accurately describe how Gamba's argument works.

One aspect of Method of Reasoning questions it's helpful to be aware of is that, while typically some choices in a question are easy to eliminate, there is often one choice that's tricky to eliminate, and only some subtle issue with that choice will be grounds for eliminating it and choosing the correct answer instead.

(A) questioning a conclusion based on the results of a vote, on the grounds that people with certain views are more likely to vote

The argument does not involve the idea that "people with certain views are more likely to vote."

Rather, the point is that not many people voted at all.

Eliminate.

(B) questioning a claim supported by statistical data by arguing that statistical data can be manipulated to support whatever view the interpreter wants to support

Gamba does not suggest that data has been "manipulated."

Rather, the point of the argument is that the available data is too limited to solidly support the conclusion.

Eliminate.

(C) attempting to refute an argument by showing that, contrary to what has been claimed, the truth of the premises does not guarantee the truth of the conclusion

This choice is the toughest to eliminate, but we can confidently eliminate it by noticing two subtle issues with it.

One is that, Gamba does not attempt to "refute," i.e., prove untrue, the conclusion that there is "citywide opposition" to the new water system. Rather, Gamba's point is merely that "one should not assume" that that conclusion is correct because amount of data supporting it is very small. So, one reason this choice does not correctly describe how the argument works is that attempting to "refute" a conclusion and suggesting that there's not much support for it are quite different.

The second issue with this choice is that Muñoz has not "claimed" that the premises "guarantee" the truth of the conclusion. Rather, Muñoz claims only that the data is "overwhelming evidence" of opposition. "Overwhelming evidence" may strongly support a conclusion, but strongly supporting something is different from guaranteeing it.

So, while Gamba does show something "contrary to what has been claimed," what Gamba shows is not that the premises do not "guarantee" the truth of the conclusion but rather that they do not constitute "overwhelming evidence."

Eliminate.

(D) criticizing a view on the grounds that the view is based on evidence that is in principle impossible to disconfirm

Gamba's argument is not based the idea that it is not possible to "disconfirm" the evidence. In other words, Gama does not suggest that the evidence cannot be verified.

Rather, Gamba's argument is basically that, even if the premises are true, there's not enough data to solidly support Muñoz's claim.

Eliminate.

(E) attempting to cast doubt on a conclusion by claiming that the statistical sample on which the conclusion is based is too small to be dependable

This choice perfectly describes how Gamba's argument works.

Muñoz cites votes of members of the Southwest Hopeville Neighbors Association as "evidence of citywide opposition" to the new water system.

Gamba's point is that those votes represent the views of "far less than 1 percent of Hopeville’s population," in other words that the votes cites by Muñoz constitute a "sample ... too small to be dependable," and that therefore the votes are not overwhelming evidence of opposition.

Keep.

Correct answer:   E

ManifestDreamMBA · Answer

Thanks  DmitryFarber  and  MartyMurray  for explaining this in detail. This is super helpful.

A_Nishith · Answer

(A) nope;
(B) nope, the problem is the representation of that data;
(C) irrelevant;
(D) nope;

Ans (E)

Gamba: Muñoz claims that the Southwest Hopeville Neighbors Association

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

Gamba: Muñoz claims that the Southwest Hopeville Neighbors Association

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