Per a recent survey carried out in Rambo City, capital of Papula count

Hi Sukant,

Thank you for posting this query.

I think how we define something "vague" is actually vague itself. I suggest that you look at the official question (OG13 Q94) and the discussion around this in the below thread:

as-a-construction-material-bamboo-is-as-strong-as-steel-and-135997.html

The correct option in the above question requires you to understand/assume where multistory buildings will be required most. If we say this is vague assumption or additional information required to make this option correct, then essentially we are going against the official question.

Regarding what you read in Manhattan or other guides, I am not sure what you mean when you say it should require additional evidence. A correct weakening choice is an additional evidence (i.e. in addition to the argument) that weakens your belief in the conclusion. Now, if you think (I am just guessing) that a correct choice should not bring rely on new information to make it correct, then look at below official question:

twenty-years-ago-balzania-put-in-place-regulations-130755.html

The correct option is C, which relies on information after "because" in the option statement. So, the first part of option C will not explain the paradox unless we know the part after "because". So, the option gives you two pieces of information which complement each other to explain the paradox and hence make the choice correct.

Let me know if you still have questions.

Thanks,
Chiranjeev

Hi Chiranjeev,
Thanx for ur response. As I said, I have seen very rare such questions. But in the example question you have given, the ans is a little bit clear as there is no other option actually targeting any disadvantage of bamboos over steel and concrete. In fact, in the question all the options assumed something or other and finally, I could easily mark option (b) because of the above said reason. In the current question being discussed, I can clearly see from option (a) that if there are people who won't spend any money when they actually required to, how can govt get the funds or how can govt provide these subsidized electric cars.
U are right that sometimes, we have to assume something to get the right answer, but in this question from option (a), I can explicitly tell that govt won't be able to do so if people aren't willing any more to buy even if they have told the opposite in the surveys. I actually donot have to assume anything. This is quite clear.
But in option (c), firstly, I have to assume that electric cars are more convenient that gasoline cars ( hell of an assumption, considering the fact that 'convenience' word is not even used once during the passage). I say I am an expert and gasoline cars are more convenient than electric cars. Then, option (c) cant be the answer. This was actually what I meant by saying 'vague' assumptions because we are taking too far fetched information to prove a point.
The only concern for govt is funds and an interested market; option (a) destroys the second point (interested market). Govt cannot sell cars if they donot get an interested market. From option (c), we are also (though by taking such assumptions) attacking the second point (an interested market), but via option (a) we donot have to assume anything that is far beyond the scope of the passage.
You can check all examples of OG as well in which assumptions are being taken in the options, but there will be explicit assumptions such as the one you showed. Never will there be any question in which an option explicitly answers the question and an option which answers by assuming way too much.
I think I have made my point. Please correct me wherever I am wrong...
Thanks in advance!!!!

Hi Sukant,

I see that you have some good understanding of the official questions. Let me put here two points to explain my case: one in favor of option C and one against option A.

1. In option C, even if you ignore "convenience" part, there is one more information embedded in option C as I explain in my detailed solution. Option C also says that people near retirement age constitute more than 50% of the population. Now, we know from the argument that the government's plan relies on a survey of middle-aged people.

Option C suggests that the government's plan might not work for a majority of population (unless you assume that the priorities of both the categories of people are same).

In other words, option C suggests that the surveyed people are actually not representative of the population. Now, since the argument relies on the survey results, the argument is weakened by option C. Actually, some official questions are actually built around this idea of representative sample. You can refer to my article on Representative Samples:

article-representative-sample-a-concept-tested-in-gmat-cr-158832.html

2. The problem with option A is "some". It suggests that some people will not switch to electric cars. Right?

Now, an important point to consider here is that does the argument require all people to switch for the plan to be successful. The answer is No.

Even if 10% of the people don't switch, the plan will very likely to succeed.

This plan is going to affect the population of the whole country. It is rather expected that there would be some people who will not switch. The plan does not rely on or expect all people to switch.

Just because we know some people will not switch, our belief in the plan does not go down.

On the other hand, if option A had suggested 50% of the people will not switch, then it might be correct.

I hope it helps.

Thanks,
Chiranjeev

Hello,

Option D does not deal with the ability of the plan to reach the required objective here too.

The plan is to allow all the current owners of gasoline-run cars to switch to electric cars at a minimal cost.
The required objective is to significantly reduce air pollution in the upcoming five years.

Option D talks about the last two decades and the increase in the number of cars in the region during that period.
So, the current number of cars is this increased number.

Hope this clarifies the case!

I believe the contest is between B & C. Because A mentions "some people" while B & C are making us assume whether the plan is going to cause deficit (as in B) or driving an electric vehicle is not as convenient (as in C).
I went for B because C was more assumptive.

Hi,
From what i know, Weakner's purpose is not to necessarily break the conclusion, instead it needs to create a doubt. Assumptions are the one's which make or break the conclusion. And you can't deny this fact, as in Egmat course, this exact statement is stated and told so many times in so many questions.
Moving on, Choice A creates that doubt. But Choice C, how do i know which car is "convenient to drive".
You can argue that again this option also Creates the doubt if electric is less convenient, but this is the thing right that we DON't know which is convenient to drive.
But in A, it says SOME won't switch, so there is our weakener.
egmat

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.