It is currently 13 Dec 2017, 11:01

Decision(s) Day!:

CHAT Rooms | Ross R1 | Kellogg R1 | Darden R1 | Tepper R1


Close

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
Your Progress

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

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Governments have only one response to public criticism of

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Manager
Manager
User avatar
B
Status: love the club...
Joined: 24 Mar 2015
Posts: 213

Kudos [?]: 21 [0], given: 472

Governments have only one response to public criticism of [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 Oct 2017, 11:05
mikemcgarry wrote:
gurpreet07 wrote:
Governments have only one response to public criticism of socially necessary services: regulation of the activity of providing those services. But governments inevitably make the activity more expensive by regulating it, and that is particularly troublesome in these times of strained financial resources. However, since public criticism of child-care services has undermined all confidence in such services, and since such services are socially necessary, the government is certain to respond.

Which one of the following statements can be inferred from the passage?
(A) The quality of child care will improve.
(B) The cost of providing child-care services will increase.
(C) The government will use funding to foster advances in child care.
(D) If public criticism of policy is strongly voiced, the government is certain to respond.
(E) If child-care services are not regulated, the cost of providing child care will not increase
.

The LSAT arguments are typically harder than GMAT CR arguments, so if you have run out of challenging GMAT CR practice questions, the LSAT questions can be an excellent source of further practice.

This argument is a complex syllogism.
General case: public complains --- government forced to regulate ---- more money spent on the necessary social service.
Then, we apply this general case scenario the specific example of child care
folks are complaining about child care --- the government will have to regulate it --- then it will cost more money to run the child care programs

Now, let's look at the answers:
(A) The quality of child care will improve.
We know that it's quite likely that the government will spend more money on child care to regulate it. Does this necessarily mean that the quality of the child care programs will improve. Perhaps in a magical fairyland, anything at which the government throws money automatically improves, but in the real world, there are oh-so-many examples of the best intentions of government spending going astray, and programs not improving despite increased spending. It's very helpful to have a real world sense of these things ---- both GMAT CR and LSAT argument questions are consistent with the push & pull of real world forces.
(A) is incorrect.

(B) The cost of providing child-care services will increase.
This is the direct result of the parallel logic. Notice --- we don't know to whom the costs increase: will that increased cost be paid by the parents who want childcare, or by the government (i.e. by all taxpayers)? We don't know, but this is irrelevant. Regardless of who pays, the cost will be increased. (B) is a promising and plausible answer.

(C) The government will use funding to foster advances in child care.
Similar to (A). Yes, the government is going to through money at the programs in the form of regulating it, but will these regulations produce radically improved programs? Of course, that's the idealized hope, but there's no guarantee that this will be the outcome.
(D) is incorrect.

(D) If public criticism of policy is strongly voiced, the government is certain to respond.
Very tricky. This passage is very specifically about "socially necessary services". The government funds a whole bunch of things that are not in the category of socially necessary services (the arts, environmental protection, diplomacy & foreign aid, etc. etc.) Will the government respond to strong criticism about any of these? We don't know. It's well outside the scope of this argument.
(D) is incorrect.

(E) If child-care services are not regulated, the cost of providing child care will not increase
This is the one about which smartmanav asked. Technically, this answer choice is relying on a logical mistake known as the equivalence of a conditional statement and its inverse. In formal language, the mistake is
Starting with (if P, then Q), we conclude (if not P, then not Q).
This is a logical fallacy.
Consider these examples:
Original: If I am in the SF Bay Area, then I am in California. True
Inverse: If I am not in the SF Bay Area, then I am not in California. False --- I could be in LA or San Diego or Tahoe or Yosemite or etc. California is a big state!

Original: If a shape is a square, then it is a quadrilateral. True
Inverse: If a shape is not a square, then it is not a quadrilateral. False --- it could be a trapezoid, a slanted rhombus, an elongated rectangle, etc. etc.

The argument makes the case that
If government regulates, then costs increase.
For the purposes of this question, we have to accept the prompt evidence as true.
Essentially, answer choice (E) leaps from here to the inverse:
If government does not regulate, then costs will not increase.
If the government does not regular child care, that particular source of cost increase is eliminated, but that is certainly not a guarantee that nothing else at all will cause the price to increase. There could be a labor dispute, lawsuits from parents, insurance increases, etc. etc. --- any one of a thousand other things that could cause the price of child care to increase. We don't have a guarantee that the cost of child care will increase, but we certainly can't conclude definitively that the cost won't increase. The truth is: if the government does not regular child care, we have absolutely no idea whether the cost of child care will increase or not. We can draw no conclusion. We have absolutely no grounds for concluding the inverse from the original conditional statement ---- this is a fundamental logical fallacy.
(E) is incorrect.

The only possible answer is (B).

Does all of this make sense?

Mike :-)



hi mikemcgarry

wonderful was your explanation to discard E. Thank you! :-)

many a time, however, I have seen such logical fallacy in place to strengthen an argument. Specifically - although not pertaining to this question - is the usage of such fallacy a legitimate way of strengthening any argument ...?

thanks in advance, man 8-)

Kudos [?]: 21 [0], given: 472

Expert Post
1 KUDOS received
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
User avatar
G
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4551

Kudos [?]: 8951 [1], given: 111

Re: Governments have only one response to public criticism of [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Oct 2017, 10:30
1
This post received
KUDOS
Expert's post
gmatcracker2017 wrote:
hi mikemcgarry

wonderful was your explanation to discard E. Thank you! :-)

many a time, however, I have seen such logical fallacy in place to strengthen an argument. Specifically - although not pertaining to this question - is the usage of such fallacy a legitimate way of strengthening any argument ...?

thanks in advance, man 8-)

Dear gmatcracker2017,

I'm happy to respond. :-)

Can one advance a logical fallacy as a legitimate way to strengthen an argument? On the GMAT CR, absolutely not. The GMAT is a magical world in which everything is perfectly logical, so a logical fallacy would carry no weight at all. ON the GMAT CR, nothing good can come from a logical fallacy.

That's on the GMAT. In politics and in the business world, you will at times run into people, especially people in power, who simply want to believe whatever they believe, and if an argument for what they believe needs strengthening, a logical fallacy is just as good as anything else to support it. It's sad, but the real world falls astoundingly short of the high standard of logic and intellectual rigor found on the GMAT.

Does all this make sense?
Mike :-)
_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

Image

Image

Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire. — William Butler Yeats (1865 – 1939)

Kudos [?]: 8951 [1], given: 111

Manager
Manager
User avatar
B
Status: love the club...
Joined: 24 Mar 2015
Posts: 213

Kudos [?]: 21 [0], given: 472

Governments have only one response to public criticism of [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Oct 2017, 07:19
mikemcgarry wrote:
gmatcracker2017 wrote:
hi mikemcgarry

wonderful was your explanation to discard E. Thank you! :-)

many a time, however, I have seen such logical fallacy in place to strengthen an argument. Specifically - although not pertaining to this question - is the usage of such fallacy a legitimate way of strengthening any argument ...?

thanks in advance, man 8-)

Dear gmatcracker2017,

I'm happy to respond. :-)

Can one advance a logical fallacy as a legitimate way to strengthen an argument? On the GMAT CR, absolutely not. The GMAT is a magical world in which everything is perfectly logical, so a logical fallacy would carry no weight at all. ON the GMAT CR, nothing good can come from a logical fallacy.

That's on the GMAT. In politics and in the business world, you will at times run into people, especially people in power, who simply want to believe whatever they believe, and if an argument for what they believe needs strengthening, a logical fallacy is just as good as anything else to support it. It's sad, but the real world falls astoundingly short of the high standard of logic and intellectual rigor found on the GMAT.

Does all this make sense?
Mike :-)


thanks man :-)
great!

you have provided, I must say, an excellent explanation to the issue
it was really my privilege to put the issue under your scrutiny

thanks again
take care :-)

Kudos [?]: 21 [0], given: 472

Verbal Forum Moderator
User avatar
V
Status: Greatness begins beyond your comfort zone
Joined: 08 Dec 2013
Posts: 1799

Kudos [?]: 1064 [0], given: 90

Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
GPA: 3.2
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge CAT Tests
Governments have only one response to public criticism of [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 13 Dec 2017, 04:26
gurpreet07 wrote:
Governments have only one response to public criticism of socially necessary services: regulation of the activity of providing those services. But governments inevitably make the activity more expensive by regulating it, and that is particularly troublesome in these times of strained financial resources. However, since public criticism of child-care services has undermined all confidence in such services, and since such services are socially necessary, the government is certain to respond.

Which one of the following statements can be inferred from the passage?

(A) The quality of child care will improve.
(B) The cost of providing child-care services will increase.
(C) The government will use funding to foster advances in child care.
(D) If public criticism of policy is strongly voiced, the government is certain to respond.
(E) If child-care services are not regulated, the cost of providing child care will not increase.

Source : LSAT PrepTest 2 - October 1991 Q9


Public criticism of service --> regulation --> increased cost

Child care is publicly criticized --> there will be regulation

OKAY. So we can feel pretty confident that the correct answer is going to say something about cost.

(A) This is actually a pretty tricky answer, because the whole point of regulation is to improve the service. But we can't definitively say it'll happen.

(B) CORRECT. Yep. We know regulation leads to increased cost, and we know there will be regulation.

(C)Irrelevant

(D) We only can infer this for socially necessary services

(E) This is what we call "reversed logic". Remember if A-->B, that doesn't mean -A-->-B (the correct contrapositive would be -B-->-A, the meaning of which would be "If the cost of a service hasn't gone up, it hasn't been subjected to regulation." ).
_________________

When everything seems to be going against you, remember that the airplane takes off against the wind, not with it. - Henry Ford
The Moment You Think About Giving Up, Think Of The Reason Why You Held On So Long
+1 Kudos if you find this post helpful

Kudos [?]: 1064 [0], given: 90

Governments have only one response to public criticism of   [#permalink] 13 Dec 2017, 04:26

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 24 posts ] 

Display posts from previous: Sort by

Governments have only one response to public criticism of

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.