Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
Magazine article: The Environmental Commissioner's new [#permalink]
07 Jan 2004, 12:11
50% (00:00) correct
50% (01:29) wrong based on 2 sessions
HideShow timer Statistics
15. Magazine article: The Environmental Commissioner's new proposals are called "Fresh Thinking on the Environment" and a nationwide debate on them has been announced. Well, "fresh thinking" from such an unlikely source as the commissioner does deserve closer inspection. Unfortunately we discovered that these proposals are virtually identical to those issued three months ago by Tsarque Inc, under the heading "new Environmentalism" (Tsarque Inc's chief is a close friend of the commissioner). Since Tsarque Inc's polluting has marked it as an environmental nightmare in our opinion the "nationwide debate"can end here.
A flaw in the magazine article?s reasoning is that it
(A) assumes without any justification that since two texts are similar one of them must be influenced by the other
(B) gives a distorted version of the commissioner?s proposals and then attacks this distorted version
(C) dismisses the proposals because of their source rather than because of their substance
(D) uses emotive language in labeling the proposals
(E) appeals to the authority of Tsarque Inc's chief without giving evidence that this person's opinion should carry special weight
The conclusion of the argument given is Since Tsarque Inc's polluting has marked it as an environmental nightmare in our opinion the "nationwide debate"can end here.
The magazine does not want a debate because Tsarque Inc's proposal was dismissed. It is assuming that the substance of the two articles are the same (Option A). But, Option C points out the reasoning behind the magzine's conclusion.
i.e. If X is wrong -> anything similar to X is wrong.
Thus, C gives a more stronger option than A.
If option C IS a flaw then the argument CANNOT hold by itself.
But, even if Option A IS NOT assumed, the argument CAN still stand.
C also. A does not relate to the argument. The argument says that since Tsarque Inc's chief is a close friend of the commissioner and Tsarque Inc is polluting therefore, the environmental proposal can be invalidated. The author is really trying to attack the sources rather than assuming any similarity between the two texts
You can blame the source only when you assume that the two articles are connected. A is necessary to justify the blame.
Correct, but as I said in the post above, you can reject the debate claim even if u assume the two articles are different on the basis that the source is the same.
So, Option A is not always true.
But, Option C is always true from the information in the stimulus.
Ok guys the correct answer is C. I chose A. Now I see why. I have a slight twist to what you have explained.
Wether or not the articles are same the proposals are same. This is confirmed in the passage. Since proposals are same incompetitiveness of one source in a way proves the incompitiveness of the other. This is what C says. I hope you will agree.