Bunuel wrote:
Commentator: Advocates of direct cash assistance payments to individuals have long asserted that such payments, from either local or federal funds, are an effective way to build wealth among working people who struggle to accumulate capital while meeting basic expenses. Clearly, however, this assertion has proven false. In a recent two-year pilot program, most recipients of direct cash assistance reported that they spent all of the additional funds on immediate expenses. Even among those who did save, few set aside more than 10% of the funds in savings or retirement accounts.
The commentator’s argument is flawed in that it
(A) Presupposes that a program of assistance to working people would be successful only if it helped build wealth
(B) Fails to distinguish between essential and discretionary spending
(C) Takes for granted that in a longer-term program of cash assistance, most recipients would first settle short-term expenses and then shift to saving a significant portion of the assistance money
(D) Fails to distinguish between a measure that directly contributes to a desired outcome and a measure that facilitates the accomplishment of that outcome
(E) Takes for granted that a pattern of behavior following upon a particular intervention would not have occurred in the absence of that intervention
The word flawed in the question stem indicates that this is a Find the Flaw question.
Step 2: Deconstruct the Argument In this argument, the conclusion is hidden in the middle. First, the commentator describes someone else’s opinion—a counterpoint. Advocates have said that giving people cash will build wealth. The commentator concludes that this view is wrong, then provides a supporting premise: People who received cash assistance put only a small percentage into savings or retirement accounts.
Step 3: Pause and State the Goal Since this is a Find the Flaw question, the answer will relate to an assumption the argument relies upon. Here are two big ones the commentator seems to be making:
1) The results of the two-year study are representative of what would happen in other situations.
2) If people didn’t put much money into a savings/retirement account, the cash assistance didn’t help them build wealth.
Any argument relying on a study or sample is relying on the idea that this result is not an outlier, but that can be a little too simple and direct to make a tricky GMAT answer. However, the results could be unrepresentative in more subtle ways. For instance, maybe two years is not long enough to see the effect that advocates of cash assistance have predicted. The commentator is assuming that if any wealth-building was going to happen, it would happen within the first two years.
Next, there other ways to build wealth: paying down credit card debt, building home equity, paying for college.
One more feature to consider: On Find the Flaw questions, some of the answers may describe an assumption the argument relies upon, while others may describe a weakness that the argument fails to address. The answers may also directly describe the commentator’s error in logic.
In this case, choices (A), (C), and (E) are all trying to describe assumptions. The terms
presupposes and
takes for granted are synonyms for
assumes. On the other hand, (B) and (D) directly describe logical errors. (None of the answers in this set are weakeners. That language would be something along the lines of
fails to consider or
neglects the possibility that.)
Step 4: Work From Wrong to Right(A) This is not a necessary assumption. The conclusion addresses only one claim made by the advocates: whether this assistance will create wealth. The argument doesn’t address what other criteria might be used to judge the success of the program.
(B) The argument mentions only
basic expenses and
immediate expenses. It does not address whether those expenses are essential or discretionary.
(C) Watch out for the trap! This would be a great answer if it began with
fails to consider or
overlooks the possibility, thereby indicating a weaken answer. If individuals were likely to shift to saving the assistance funds in a longer-term program, that would weaken the argument. However, the language
takes for granted means
assumes. The commentator isn’t assuming this at all. If anyone is making this assumption, it’s the advocates described in the first sentence!
(D) CORRECT. If the argument
fails to distinguish between two things, it treats them as the same. The commentator assumes that since the assistance didn’t
contribute directly to wealth (more money in savings now), it also didn’t indirectly contribute to building wealth in some other way. But if, for example, someone paid down credit card debt, they would reduce their future interest payments—one way to build future wealth. Alternatively, if they invested in education, they might be able to get a higher-paying job, another way to build future wealth.
(E) When the language is abstract, fill it in with the applicable terms from the argument. The
intervention is cash assistance and the
behavior that follows is spending on immediate expenses (rather than saving). So this is saying that the commentator has assumed that recipients would not have spent so much if they hadn’t received the assistance. This isn’t a necessary assumption. Because the commentator’s conclusion is about the accumulation of wealth, the argument is not affected by whether people would have spent less without cash assistance. It doesn’t matter
why they spent the money; it only matters whether that spending contributed to wealth creation.
close
11 Jul 2022, 08:00
54%
(02:33)
wrong 
