GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 20 Aug 2018, 09:38

### 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

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

# Journalist : In late 1994, the present government of the

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 03 Jun 2010
Posts: 135
Location: Dubai, UAE
Schools: IE Business School, Manchester Business School, HEC Paris, Rotterdam School of Management, Babson College
Re: present government of the Republic of Bellam  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 Jun 2011, 03:13
Have to weaken the claims of the journalist and by POE this is the best choice. Weakening does not mean it has to be exactly that, rather it should be the closest . If you read all the options, this is the closest I did have to re read it twice.

Posted from GMAT ToolKit
Director
Status: Prep started for the n-th time
Joined: 29 Aug 2010
Posts: 560
Re: present government of the Republic of Bellam  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 Jun 2011, 18:33
B for me.

Journalist assumed that the same number of people are criticizing the government under the new government as before when concluding that the old goverment was more tolerant. The politician attacks this assumption by mentioning that fewer journalists criticized the govt earlier. Hence the Conclusion is weakened

Crick
Manager
Joined: 21 Aug 2012
Posts: 124
Re: Journalist : In late 1994, the present government of the  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Aug 2013, 00:01
Hi,

B is correct..

But i could not understand why option E is incorrect..!!!

Thanks,
Jai
_________________

MODULUS Concept ---> http://gmatclub.com/forum/inequalities-158054.html#p1257636
HEXAGON Theory ---> http://gmatclub.com/forum/hexagon-theory-tips-to-solve-any-heaxgon-question-158189.html#p1258308

Manager
Joined: 09 Jun 2013
Posts: 51
GMAT 1: 680 Q49 V33
GMAT 2: 690 Q49 V34
GPA: 3.86
Re: Journalist : In late 1994, the present government of the  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Aug 2013, 01:34
1
Let me help you with this one. This is the flaw in the reasoning question.

(E) Stating that the argument treats information about some members of a group as if it applied to all members of that group. In other words, it means that the argument contains the error of taking small examples of one group and treating these example to support a general conclusion about that group. To illustrate, "two of my best friends went to watch a soccer match. Therefore, all of my best friends went to watch that soccer match." This error is called over-generalization.

(C) Questioning the accuracy of the evidence presented in support of the journalist’s conclusion. This choice is incorrect because the politician accepts the evidence from the journalist that in 1994, only six journalists were imprisoned for criticizing the government.
_________________

Don't be afraid to fail, but be afraid not to try

Manager
Joined: 21 Aug 2012
Posts: 124
Re: Journalist : In late 1994, the present government of the  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Aug 2013, 02:26
Juz2play wrote:
Let me help you with this one. This is the flaw in the reasoning question.

(E) Stating that the argument treats information about some members of a group as if it applied to all members of that group. In other words, it means that the argument contains the error of taking small examples of one group and treating these example to support a general conclusion about that group. To illustrate, "two of my best friends went to watch a soccer match. Therefore, all of my best friends went to watch that soccer match." This error is called over-generalization.

(C) Questioning the accuracy of the evidence presented in support of the journalist’s conclusion. This choice is incorrect because the politician accepts the evidence from the journalist that in 1994, only six journalists were imprisoned for criticizing the government.

Hi,

For E...
That is what the argument says:
Journalist says: In1994,under old govt. six journalist were imprisoned.
Since 1994, under new govt. 30 journalist were imprisoned.

Politician: In 1994, it was 6/6 case.
Since 1994, it is not 30/30 case.. it could be 30/100.

Hence , under new govt. journalist have advantage.

This is what E talks about. it says that
(E) Stating that the argument treats information about some members of a group as if it applied to all members of that group.
some 30 is the some members of the group(100).. and journalist assumes that 30/30 is applied to all members of that group..

To reiterate: Politician replies by Stating that information is regarding some ppl out of the group and does not apply to all members of that group...

Still unclear why E is incorrect...

Thanks,
Jai
_________________

MODULUS Concept ---> http://gmatclub.com/forum/inequalities-158054.html#p1257636
HEXAGON Theory ---> http://gmatclub.com/forum/hexagon-theory-tips-to-solve-any-heaxgon-question-158189.html#p1258308

Retired Moderator
Joined: 16 Jun 2012
Posts: 1075
Location: United States
Re: Journalist : In late 1994, the present government of the  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Aug 2013, 15:41
jaituteja wrote:
Juz2play wrote:
Let me help you with this one. This is the flaw in the reasoning question.

(E) Stating that the argument treats information about some members of a group as if it applied to all members of that group. In other words, it means that the argument contains the error of taking small examples of one group and treating these example to support a general conclusion about that group. To illustrate, "two of my best friends went to watch a soccer match. Therefore, all of my best friends went to watch that soccer match." This error is called over-generalization.

(C) Questioning the accuracy of the evidence presented in support of the journalist’s conclusion. This choice is incorrect because the politician accepts the evidence from the journalist that in 1994, only six journalists were imprisoned for criticizing the government.

Hi,

For E...
That is what the argument says:
Journalist says: In1994,under old govt. six journalist were imprisoned.
Since 1994, under new govt. 30 journalist were imprisoned.

Politician: In 1994, it was 6/6 case.
Since 1994, it is not 30/30 case.. it could be 30/100.

Hence , under new govt. journalist have advantage.

This is what E talks about. it says that
(E) Stating that the argument treats information about some members of a group as if it applied to all members of that group.
some 30 is the some members of the group(100).. and journalist assumes that 30/30 is applied to all members of that group..

To reiterate: Politician replies by Stating that information is regarding some ppl out of the group and does not apply to all members of that group...

Still unclear why E is incorrect...

Thanks,
Jai

Dear Jai

You read the politician's argument too fast, I guess. Thus, you misunderstood the idea of the politician a bit.

Politician: But in 1994 only six journalists criticized the government, and now journalists routinely do

Note: routinely is frequently

Be careful with the blue part. What does he mean? The politician challenges the journalist who said more journalist imprisoned, less tolerant the Government was. It means the journalist just focused on the number of journalists imprisoned, but the politician does not agree with that. He maintained that the number of journalists imprisoned may be THE SAME (6 people), but these journalists criticized the government MORE FREQUENTLY. --> Thus, there were more cases of journalists imprisoned than in 1994.

Let see E:
E is not the main point that the politician wanted to convey. In fact, he may agree that six journalists imprisoned is a total group (100% as you said). He just criticized the assumption of the journalist who concerned about the number rather than the frequency.

Hence, E is not the answer.

Hope it helps.
_________________

Please +1 KUDO if my post helps. Thank you.

"Designing cars consumes you; it has a hold on your spirit which is incredibly powerful. It's not something you can do part time, you have do it with all your heart and soul or you're going to get it wrong."

Chris Bangle - Former BMW Chief of Design.

Intern
Joined: 15 Feb 2015
Posts: 4
Location: United States
Concentration: Finance, Strategy
Re: Journalist : In late 1994, the present government of the  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 May 2015, 04:23
I went for D. Looking at the Politician's statement, he is challenging the Journalist's conclusion (So the old government was more tolerant of criticism by the press than the new one is) by citing the same data that the Journalist has used. The Politician in my opinion has not produced any new evidence, he has simply used the data to arrive at a different conclusion (That is: more arrests mean more journalists are critical of the government, and not the other way round, i.e., more arrests mean less tolerance of criticism by the government). In deed, B is correct in as far as it points out that the Politician is challenging the Journalist's assumption, but there is nowhere in the Politician's statement where new evidence is presented.
Manager
Joined: 10 Mar 2014
Posts: 212
Re: Journalist : In late 1994, the present government of the  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Jun 2015, 01:49
pqhai wrote:
jaituteja wrote:
Juz2play wrote:
Let me help you with this one. This is the flaw in the reasoning question.

(E) Stating that the argument treats information about some members of a group as if it applied to all members of that group. In other words, it means that the argument contains the error of taking small examples of one group and treating these example to support a general conclusion about that group. To illustrate, "two of my best friends went to watch a soccer match. Therefore, all of my best friends went to watch that soccer match." This error is called over-generalization.

(C) Questioning the accuracy of the evidence presented in support of the journalist’s conclusion. This choice is incorrect because the politician accepts the evidence from the journalist that in 1994, only six journalists were imprisoned for criticizing the government.

Hi,

For E...
That is what the argument says:
Journalist says: In1994,under old govt. six journalist were imprisoned.
Since 1994, under new govt. 30 journalist were imprisoned.

Politician: In 1994, it was 6/6 case.
Since 1994, it is not 30/30 case.. it could be 30/100.

Hence , under new govt. journalist have advantage.

This is what E talks about. it says that
(E) Stating that the argument treats information about some members of a group as if it applied to all members of that group.
some 30 is the some members of the group(100).. and journalist assumes that 30/30 is applied to all members of that group..

To reiterate: Politician replies by Stating that information is regarding some ppl out of the group and does not apply to all members of that group...

Still unclear why E is incorrect...

Thanks,
Jai

Dear Jai

You read the politician's argument too fast, I guess. Thus, you misunderstood the idea of the politician a bit.

Politician: But in 1994 only six journalists criticized the government, and now journalists routinely do

Note: routinely is frequently

Be careful with the blue part. What does he mean? The politician challenges the journalist who said more journalist imprisoned, less tolerant the Government was. It means the journalist just focused on the number of journalists imprisoned, but the politician does not agree with that. He maintained that the number of journalists imprisoned may be THE SAME (6 people), but these journalists criticized the government MORE FREQUENTLY. --> Thus, there were more cases of journalists imprisoned than in 1994.

Let see E:
E is not the main point that the politician wanted to convey. In fact, he may agree that six journalists imprisoned is a total group (100% as you said). He just criticized the assumption of the journalist who concerned about the number rather than the frequency.

Hence, E is not the answer.

Hope it helps.

Hi Pqhai,

Thanks
Joined: 24 Oct 2012
Posts: 181
Re: Journalist : In late 1994, the present government of the  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Jun 2015, 09:59
ghentu wrote:
Journalist: In late 1994, the present government of the Republic of Bellam came into power. Each year since then, about thirty journalists have been imprisoned for printing articles that criticize the government. In 1994, under the old government, only six journalists were imprisoned for criticizing the government. So the old government was more tolerant of criticism by the press than the new one is.

Politician: But in 1994 only six journalists criticized the government, and now journalists routinely do.

The politician challenges the journalist’s argument by doing which of the following?
(A) Presenting data that extend further into the past than the journalist’s data
(B) Introducing evidence that undermines an assumption of the journalist’s argument
(C) Questioning the accuracy of the evidence presented in support of the journalist’s conclusion
(D) Pointing out that the argument illegitimately draws a general conclusion on the basis of a sample of only a few cases
(E) Stating that the argument treats information about some members of a group as if it applied to all members of that group

I don't understand Politician's remark . Is that a challenge ? he just said "...and now journalists routinely do."

I don't get whether its challenge ....how come it be a challenge ? it looks to me he is supporting the journalist's remark that "....Each year since then" routine task.

My attempt :
Journalist - New government is More Bad since they imprisoned journalists for criticizing. Old Govt was less bad since only 6 were imprisoned.
Assumption that Journalist made - In old Govt reign, Number of criticizers are comparable still only 6 were imprisoned hence not that bad.

Politician, weakens the journalist's argument by attacking on assumption.

Only option choice B states that.
Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 2598
Re: Journalist : In late 1994, the present government of the  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

31 Jul 2017, 22:21
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.
_________________
Re: Journalist : In late 1994, the present government of the &nbs [#permalink] 31 Jul 2017, 22:21

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 30 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by

# Events & Promotions

 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®.