Journal editor: Our treasurer advises that because of our precarious

Question

Journal editor: Our treasurer advises that because of our precarious financial situation, we should change from a paper version to an online version only if doing so will not increase the cost of publication. The cost of converting from a paper version to an online version is high; however, once the conversion is made, the cost per issue is much lower for an online version. Since a benefactor has agreed to cover the costs of conversion, and since we can safely assume that our treasurer is right, we should change to an online version.

The journal editor's argument is flawed in that it

(A) treats meeting a necessary condition for changing from a paper to an online version as a sufficient reason for changing

(B) takes for granted that publishing a paper version rather than an online version is the reason the journal is in a precarious financial position

(C) overlooks the possibility that an online version would have other advantages over a paper version than cost

(D) fails to rule out the possibility that the journal will remain in a precarious financial position whether it changes to an online version or not

(E) bases its conclusion on the argument of an authority speaking outside the authority's field of expertise

ankushsambare · Answer

Premise:
 
 Treasurer says they should switch to online only if doing so will not increase publication cost. 
 Conversion cost is high, but a benefactor will cover it. 
 Online publication has lower per-issue cost.  
Conclusion:
 
 Therefore, the journal should switch to an online version.  
Prethinking:
The treasurer’s statement gives a necessary condition:
“We should switch only if costs will not increase.”
The editor incorrectly treats satisfying that condition as enough by itself to justify switching.
But “costs not increasing” does not automatically mean “therefore switch.”
Now eliminate choices:
 (A) Correct. 
(B) Wrong. Argument never says paper publishing caused the financial problem.
(C) Wrong. Ignoring other advantages is not the flaw.
(D) Wrong. The conclusion is about whether to switch, not whether finances will improve overall.
(E) Wrong. Treasurer is speaking within relevant expertise.

The argument treats satisfying a necessary condition (“don’t switch unless costs won’t increase”) as though it were sufficient to conclude they should switch.
 Answer: A

guddo · Answer

Journal editor: Our treasurer advises that because of our precarious financial situation, we should change from a paper version to an online version only if doing so will not increase the cost of publication. The cost of converting from a paper version to an online version is high; however, once the conversion is made, the cost per issue is much lower for an online version. Since a benefactor has agreed to cover the costs of conversion, and since we can safely assume that our treasurer is right, we should change to an online version.
 
 The journal editor's argument is flawed in that it

The treasurer gives a necessary condition: the journal should switch only if switching will not increase publication costs. The editor then shows that this condition is probably met and concludes that the journal should switch.  The flaw is treating a necessary condition as sufficient : showing that switching is financially acceptable does not prove that the journal should switch.

(A) treats meeting a necessary condition for changing from a paper to an online version as a sufficient reason for changing

Correct. “Only if doing so will not increase the cost” means no cost increase is required for switching. It does not mean that if there is no cost increase, the journal definitely should switch.

(B) takes for granted that publishing a paper version rather than an online version is the reason the journal is in a precarious financial position

Wrong. The argument does not need to claim that paper publication caused the financial problem.

(C) overlooks the possibility that an online version would have other advantages over a paper version than cost

Wrong. Other advantages would support switching, not show a flaw in the argument.

(D) fails to rule out the possibility that the journal will remain in a precarious financial position whether it changes to an online version or not

Wrong. The argument is not claiming that switching will fully solve the financial problem.

(E) bases its conclusion on the argument of an authority speaking outside the authority's field of expertise

Wrong. The treasurer is giving financial advice, which is within a treasurer’s area.

Answer: (A)

Vivek1707 · Answer

Conditional reasoning concepts are at play in this question

Rule to remember:

x only if y ----> implies if x then y
x is the sufficient condition, and y is the necessary condition

If x ---> y valid
~y ---> ~x valid
If y ---> x  Invalid  | Switching the necessary and sufficient conditions | Also called mistaken reversal

In this question

"We should change from a paper version to an online version  only if  doing so will not increase the cost of publication."

So the conditional statement is : If we change from paper to online version (x) ---> then cost should not increase (y)  ... Valid

Then the argument says that cost of publication is not going to increase (y) (since it ll be covered by a benefactor etc) ---> we should change from paper to online version (x)

The argument is essentially considering If y ----> x  ... Invalid
  
Notice the argument is switching the necessary and sufficient conditions ---> Hence A is correct

yc168 · Answer

OE for reference:

Overview:  
The journal's editor accepts some advice from its treasurer: due to its financial situation, the journal should be changed from a paper to an online version only if doing so won't increase publication costs. The editor then gives two reasons that publication costs will not increase: an online version would have a much lower cost per issue and the costs of converting to an online version would be paid by a benefactor. On this basis, the editor concludes that the journal should change to an online version. You are asked to identify a flaw in the editor's argument.

The Correct Answer:

A  The treasurer's advice is that the journal should change to an online version only if costs will not increase. This treats the absence of any increase in publication costs as a necessary condition for changing; it is consistent with the possibility that the journal should not change even if publication costs do not increase. But the editor infers, from evidence suggesting that costs will not increase, that the journal should change to an online version. This inference is not legitimate. The editor's argument makes this flawed inference because it treats meeting the treasurer's necessary condition as sufficient reason to change.

The Incorrect Answer Choices:

B  The editor accepts the view that, because of its financial situation, the journal should be changed from a paper to an online version only if its costs do not increase. That suggests that the journal's present financial situation is a reason for considering its future costs, but it doesn't indicate anything about the reasons for that financial situation. The editor's argument doesn't address those reasons, so it doesn't take anything about them for granted.

C  The editor's argument that the journal should change to an online version is based entirely on financial considerations. These considerations could strongly support the editor's conclusion even if there are also nonfinancial advantages associated with changing, which is the possibility raised by (C). So the editor's argument need not address this possibility.

D  As (D) suggests, the editor never rules out the possibility that the journal will remain in a precarious financial position whether it changes to an online version or not. But the editor doesn't need to rule out this possibility, because even if the journal's financial situation does remain precarious, this need not affect the editor's reasoning. For example, changing the journal to an online version merely might make the journal's financial situation less precarious; in that event, the editor's premises could still support the conclusion that the journal should change.

E  It's true that the editor's conclusion is based partly on the argument of an authority, the journal's treasurer. The treasurer's argument, however, concerns the journal's finances, and there's no reason to think that those finances are outside the treasurer's field of expertise. So (E) doesn't describe a flaw in the editor's argument.

Journal editor: Our treasurer advises that because of our precarious

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

Journal editor: Our treasurer advises that because of our precarious

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