mSKR wrote:
Hi
AndrewN VeritasKarishma GMATNinja GMATRockstarI have some query on this question as A and B options could be interpreted in other way , Please share your opinion
Quote:
Industrialists from the country Distopia were accused of promoting the Distopian intervention in the Arcadian civil war merely to insure that the industrialists’ facilities in Arcadia made substantial profits during the war. Yet this cannot be the motive since, as the Distopians foresaw, Distopia’s federal expenses for the intervention were eight billion dollars, whereas, during the war, profits from the Distopian industrialists’ facilities in Arcadia totaled only four billion dollars.
Which of the following, if true, exposes a serious flaw in the argument made in the second sentence above?
Total Expenses by Distopia = 8 Billion
Profits by industrialists’ facilities = 4 billion
Quote:
(A) During the Arcadian war, many Distopian industrialists with facilities located in Arcadia experienced a significant rise in productivity in their facilities located in Distopia.
Even I get less profit in Arc but if Arc is the reason for my profits increase in Dis then I want to continue support Arc as far as total is in profit
here assumption: Productivity increase --> Profits ( i think this is reasonable)
Quote:
(B) The largest proportion of Distopia’s federal expenses is borne by those who receive no significant industrial profits.
Are those common people? Are those government ? Are those industrialists?
If non-industrialists who didn't receive profits: then argument is weakened
If industrialists who didn't receive profits : then argument is strengthened
Question lies on "Those"
2nd assumption to make this answer correct: Distopian industrialists’ facilities in Arcadia who totaled only four billion dollars - MAY HAVE MADE SIGNIFICANT PROFITS .
Only with this assumption i can separate out class those and these industrialists.
I need to find an option : a serious flaw in the argument ( most weakens)I choose A as it is simple and make sense
B is not very clear in terms of
those and profits
significant I thought so critically and tried to be in the range of what is given in the argument .
i am disappointed that I still got wrong.
Query: Based on above lines, Please suggest what mistake I can avoid and How? Thanks!
AndrewN VeritasKarishma GMATNinja GMATRockstarBtw: this is my 1000th post
Hello,
mSKR, and congratulations. I suppose it is fitting that your 1000th post falls on a 1000 Series question. This one, like others I have seen from the 1000 Series, leaves a little to be desired in terms of what I call the linear logic of the passage and answer choices. I am not the only one who thinks so. The following is what Ron Purewal wrote about the question in 2007 on the
Manhattan Prep GMAT Forum (all emphases are his, not my own):
yeah, so there's a rather large logic gap in this one. specifically:
* the profit of $4b went
to the industrialists.
* the cost of $8b was borne
by the feds.
the argument assumes - completely without justification - that the $8b cost
to the feds will somehow cancel out the industrialists' profit. there's no reason that this should be the case, or, for that matter, that the costs and revenues of those two entities should have
anything to do with one another.
therefore, to expose that flaw, we need an answer choice that demonstrates that the feds' and industrialists' ledgers
are independent of each other, at least to a large enough degree that the industrialists can still make a tidy profit.
choice (b) does this.
By the process of elimination, as outlined by
GMATNinja above, you should not have a problem getting rid of (A), which does not separate the two entities—industrialists and "feds," as Ron put it—in any satisfactory manner.
Good luck with your next 1000 posts. Thank you for your contributions to the community.
- Andrew