Mayor: The financial livelihood of our downtown businesses is in jeopa

Conclusion: To spur economic growth in our city, we must build a large parking ramp no more than two blocks from downtown.

The conclusion says that building a large parking ramp within 2 blocks is necessary to spur economic growth. Note here that we are not looking for a sufficient condition to spur economic growth. We are looking for a necessary condition - there could be other necessary conditions too. It doesn't matter to us. We need to say that building a large parking ramp no more than 2 blocks is not necessary.

A) The city budget is not currently large enough to finance the construction of a new parking ramp.

Irrelevant how it will be achieved. We need to find whether it is necessary or not.

B) There are other more significant reasons for the financial woes of downtown businesses in addition to a lack of nearby parking spaces.

As we discussed before, we are not saying that building parking space is sufficient. We are saying that it is necessary. There could be other things necessary too. So it doesn't weaken our conclusion.

C) Building a parking ramp as much as four blocks from downtown would be sufficient to greatly increase the number of shoppers to downtown businesses.

This tells us that we do not need to build it within 2 blocks. Even 4 blocks will work. So it weakens our conclusion. It clearly says "...to greatly increase the number of shoppers..." so it will spur economic growth.

D) Explosive growth is most often associated with large suburban shopping malls, not small businesses.

Irrelevant. We are not talking about "explosive growth".

E) Some additional parking spaces could be added to the downtown area without the construction of a parking ramp.

What impact "some additional parking" will have, we do not know.

Answer (C)

Here is a video discussing this question: https://youtu.be/Nl9wXcDY-ps

Let’s look at the mayor’s argument-

The financial livelihood of our downtown businesses is in jeopardy.
There are few available parking spaces close to the downtown shopping area

Conclusion-

if we are to spur economic growth in our city, we must build a large parking ramp no more than two blocks from downtown.

We need to look for an option that weakens the mayor's reasoning.

A) The city budget is not currently large enough to finance the construction of a new parking ramp.

The conclusion is that we must build a large parking ramp no more than two blocks from downtown to spur economic growth. To weaken the conclusion we have to say that it is not necessary. Whether the city budget can finance the construction of the new ramp is irrelevant. Eliminate.

B) There are other more significant reasons for the financial woes of downtown businesses in addition to a lack of nearby parking spaces.

Again, the confusion is that we must build a large parking ramp to spur economic growth in the city. There may be other reasons for the financial woes of downtown businesses but we don’t have to be bothered about that. Option B does not attack the conclusion. Eliminate.

C) Building a parking ramp as much as four blocks from downtown would be sufficient to greatly increase the number of shoppers to downtown businesses.

Option C weakens the mayor’s plan that we must build a large parking ramp no more than two blocks from downtown to spur economic growth in the city. Option C says that Building a parking ramp as much as four blocks from downtown would be sufficient to greatly increase the number of shoppers to downtown businesses. Correct.

D) Explosive growth is most often associated with large suburban shopping malls, not small businesses.
Doesn’t matter. Eliminate.

E) Some additional parking spaces could be added to the downtown area without the construction of a parking ramp.
But will it be sufficient to spur economic growth in the city? The answer to this is crucial. Eliminate.



Vishnupriya
GMAT Verbal SME

Passage Analysis

Mayor: The financial livelihood of our downtown businesses is in jeopardy.

Mayor of a city, the author, says that the daily income of downtown (a major commercial area) businesses in the city is at risk.

There are few available parking spaces close to the downtown shopping area,

There are only a small number of parking spaces near the downtown shopping area.

so if we are to spur economic growth in our city,

Therefore, if we want to encourage economic growth in the city

we must build a large parking ramp no more than two blocks from downtown.

There is no other choice but to build a large parking ramp within two blocks distance from downtown.



Question Stem

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the mayor's reasoning?

This is a direct question stem that asks for a weakener for the mayor’s argument.

Prethinking

The interesting aspect regarding this conclusion is that it is stated as a necessary condition. As per the conclusion, they must build a parking space within the specified perimeter for the mentioned goal to be attained. So our weakener should decrease one’s confidence that this action is not a necessary condition for the economic spree as mentioned.

Weakener Framework

What new information can decrease one’s belief in the conclusion that the city must build a large parking ramp no more than two blocks from downtown to spur economic growth there?

Given that:

There are only a few available parking spaces close to the downtown shopping area.

Weakener 1- Vast majority of shoppers use the line buses that regularly pass through the downtown area and do not need a parking.

Weakener 2- There are other methods to spur economic growth in the city other than the downtown shopping activity.

Weakener 3-Parking arrangements more than two blocks away can still support the shopping spree in the downtown area.

Option Analysis


A) The city budget is not currently large enough to finance the construction of a new parking ramp.

INCORRECT

This does not oppose the claim that building a parking ramp is the only way to spur economic growth. Whether it is practical to construct the parking ramp or not is another matter. Hence this is an incorrect answer.

INCORRECT

B) There are other more significant reasons for the financial woes of downtown businesses in addition to a lack of nearby parking spaces.

INCORRECT

Whether there are other reasons or not does not affect the question of whether a parking lot with in two blocks is a necessary condition. Even if there are other more significant reasons, this reason (lack of nearby parking) could still be a necessary issue to fix. This option choice does not weaken the conclusion.

Hence this is also not a correct answer.

C) Building a parking ramp as much as four blocks from downtown would be sufficient to greatly increase the number of shoppers to downtown businesses.

CORRECT

This option is in line with our third prethought weakener. It attacks the perimeter mentioned in the necessary condition and says that is not necessary. Hence it is the correct answer.

D) Explosive growth is most often associated with large suburban shopping malls, not small businesses.

INCORRRECT

What economic growth is most often associated with has nothing to do with the current case in hand. This is not in line with weakener 2 although it may sound similar. Hence, it is not a correct answer.

E) Some additional parking spaces could be added to the downtown area without the construction of a parking ramp.

INCORRRECT

Adding a very low number of parking spaces, say one or two, will also make this statement true. Such a minor addition will not make any noticeable change. Adding a lot of parking space can make a change, but we are not sure what the mentioned case is. Hence this option has no clear impact. Therefore, it is an incorrect option.

This question is definitely between B and C.

conclusion: we must build a large parking ramp no more than two blocks from downtown.

B is not addressing the conclusion. No where in the argument it's mentioned that building parking lot is the only way to improve the economy. There may be other ways too.

C says parking lot can build within four block. This directly attacks our conclusion, which says parking lot must be build with in two blocks. Hence C is Correct.

Ok let's break it down
TARGET:Weaken
Conclusion: if we are to spur economic growth in our city, we must build a large parking ramp no more than two blocks from downtown.

A)So what ? It may take loan or it may increase it in future. And most importantly its not changing "we must build". Its still same

B)There are other things... but we may still increase the revenue and save businesses by following his plan. Maybe its the most we can do. Maybe Other things can't be solved so easily.

C)Its weakening by directly attacking :"no more than two blocks from downtown">>hence our answer


D)Irrelavant-explosive growth is out of context. Not discussed anywhere
E)Are some enough to save businesses from loss ? May be not.

Therefore answer is:C

Don't correct my grammar it's not SC . I m trying to be concise.

Hope this helps.

B) There are other more significant reasons for the financial woes of downtown businesses in addition to a lack of nearby parking spaces.

C) Building a parking ramp as much as four blocks from downtown would be sufficient to greatly increase the number of shoppers to downtown businesses.



The argument hinges on the difference between a necessary and sufficient condition.

Argument: We must build the parking within two blocks from downtown to spur economic economic growth
(i.e building this parking is necessary)

Gist of Option B: There are other things necessary as well to spur economic growth. So what? There could be 100 other things that are necessary but that has no bearing on the mayor's plan that this parking within two blocks is necessary. This choice has no impact.

Option C: Building the parking four blocks would be enough for our purpose. Now the mayor's argument falls flat. Why? Because mayor said it is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY that this parking must be within two blocks. This option greatly weakens the reason given by our mayor.

Hypothetical scenario:
(Had the conclusion read: If we build the parking lot within two blocks from downtown , we will spur economic growth in the city
then option B would be a good weakener because it casts doubt on the claim that just building the parking lot would be sufficient.
Option C, in this hypothetical case, would have been incorrect because it just highlights another path to achieve the goal (that building the parking 4 blocks away would also help achieve the same goal) and hence would have had no impact on the hypothetical argument.)

Kudos please if that made sense, thanks.

VeritasKarishma


Do you mind if you expand a little bit more on the logic behind eliminating option E?
I think I eliminated option E for the right reason, but I just want to confirm.

I eliminated option E because of the usage of the word "some". SOME = anything from 1 to all.

If only 1 parking space can be built, then it's not going to weaken the author's conclusion.

Yes, "some" additional parking space is not good enough.
Note the words in the argument - "...if we are to spur economic growth in our city, we must build a large parking ramp..."
Does "some" additional parking make up for "a large parking ramp"? We don't know.

Hey VeritasKarishma I was a little confused. Hope you could help. While option C says a ramp 4 blocks away could "spur growth" it doesn't negate the fact that the one two blocks away may also spur growth i.e four blocks away may be sufficient but not necessary to spur growth. On the other hand E says that the ramp may not even be required ie growth could be spurred even without the ramp?

Looking forward to hear from you.
Thanks

We need to focus on the conclusion.

Conclusion: To spur economic growth in our city, we must build a large parking ramp no more than two blocks from downtown.

It says that we MUST build within 2 blocks i.e. 2 blocks away is necessary.

Option (C) says that 2 blocks away is not necessary. Even 4 blocks away will be sufficient. So it weakens the conclusion.

Option (E) says that some additional parking can be created without a ramp. But will "some additional parking" spur economic growth, we don't know.
On the other hand, option (C) mentions clearly "greatly increase the number of shoppers" so it will spur economic growth.

KarishmaB egmat ReedArnoldMPREP MartyTargetTestPrep
Is there any concept notes/ video I can refer to to improve accuracy on necessary and sufficient condition

Hi Rickooreo,

Here is a link to an LSAT video MPrep did on 'necessary' vs 'sufficient'

The basic gist is:

A sufficient condition *guarantees* a conclusion is true. But if it's false a conclusion could still be a true.

A necessary condition is *required* for a conclusion to be true. But if it's true the conclusion could still be false.

For instance, "My dog has plenty of food in his bowl, so he'll probably be able to live for the next month while I'm on vacation."

Well, hold on. Food is a *necessary* condition for survival, but not *sufficient.* True, if my dog does not have food, it won't survive, but, just giving it food doesn't guarantee the conclusion. Will my dog have access to *water?* That is also a necessary condition for survival. Will my dog have access to oxygen? That's also necessary for survival. None of these alone is sufficient, but each one is necessary.

"This animal is dog, so it must be mammal." Well, dogs are mammals, by definition. So knowing an animal is a dog is *sufficient* to know it is a mammal. If it's not a dog, does that mean the conclusion is *wrong?* No... The animal could be some other kind of mammal. But knowing it is a dog is sufficient to know it's a mammal.

And sometimes you have things that are necessary AND sufficient. "The door is not closed, so it must be open." Knowing a door is not closed is SUFFICIENT to show that the door is open, but it's also NECESSARY for the door to be open. If you know the door is not closed, you know it's open, and in order for a door to be open, it is required that it not be closed.

However, note that this isn't *hugely* important on the GMAT... Most of what you need to consider on the GMAT is *necessary* conditions. You'll need to wonder about what things need to be true for a conclusion to hold, not what things *prove* an argument.

So here's a quasi-realistic example: "The restaurant raised its prices on all its sandwiches, and sold more sandwiches, so it must have made more profit on its sandwich sales."

You might be aware that 'costs' are glaringly missing from this argument. Well, on the GMAT, it's almost always more useful to think about the NECESSARY assumption: "Costs didn't increase too much to cancel out their revenue increase" than to think about the SUFFICIENT assumption: "Costs didn't increase."

We know they have more revenue, because they raised price and sold more. If we KNOW costs didn't increase AT ALL, well, the argument is GUARANTEED. But if costs go up it doesn't RUIN the argument, they just can't go up TOO MUCH. It's NECESSARY that costs didn't increase more than the revenue did. If costs *did* increase that much, than the conclusion falls apart. The GMAT is almost always more interested in the necessary condition. If a question asked, "Which of the following is an assumption required by the argument?" A very tempting trap answer would be "The costs of the sandwiches for the store did not increase," because that isn't *actually* required.

what will be conclusion to make B] as weakner?

(B) would cast doubt on the following conclusion.

If we build a large parking ramp no more than two blocks from downtown, the financial livelihood of our downtown businesses will no longer be in jeopardy.

After all, if, as (B) says, "There are other more significant reasons for the financial woes of downtown businesses in addition to a lack of nearby parking spaces," then it doesn't make sense to conclude that simply building a parking ramp will solve the problem of the financial livelihood of the downtown businesses being in jeopardy.

HI
my doubt is that "c" weakens the conclusion, but doesnt the question say it should weaken the mayors "reasoning"?
If so,then could you please explain why B is not the answer

Hi Danush649,
Interesting question!

You can find a detailed solution for this question here.
However, I can see that you have some specific doubts too, so let me try to address those here.

Doubt regarding Choice C-
Your first question is that Choice C weakens the conclusion, but as per the question, we need to find a choice that weakens the mayor’s reasoning.
So, the first thing that we need to understand is whether a statement that weakens the conclusion can also weaken the reasoning used to arrive at this conclusion.

See, an argument is made up of premise and conclusion. The author uses the premise and applies some logic (reasoning) to arrive at the conclusion. Now, when we are finding a weakener for the conclusion, we are looking for something that can reduce our belief in the conclusion.
What does that mean? It means that we are questioning the author’s reasoning. With the weakener, we are trying to say that the given conclusion may not be true, i.e., the author’s reasoning is flawed.
Hence, weakening the conclusion is same as weakening the reasoning.

Let’s now see how Choice C weakens the Mayor’s reasoning:
Mayor’s reasoning- we cannot stimulate economic growth in the city without building a large parking ramp no more than two blocks from downtown.

• A statement that weakens the reasoning would reduce our belief in the reasoning.

o In other words, it will reduce our belief in the reasoning that we cannot stimulate economic growth in the city without building a large parking ramp no more than two blocks from downtown.
o Now, choice C conveys that building a parking ramp more than 2 blocks away can also help greatly increase the economic activity in the city.
o Thus, choice C makes us believe that we can spur economic growth in the city even without building the mentioned parking ramp.
o Hence, choice C weakens the mayor’s reasoning.

Hope this resolves the first part of your query.

Doubt regarding Choice B-
Let’s now discuss why Choice B is not correct.
Let me take an example:

• Let’s say you are told that scoring well in the Verbal section of the GMAT is very important to score well. Hence, you must prepare Verbal well.
• Now, if I tell you that the Quant section is also very important, will that mean that you should not prepare Verbal well? Clearly no.

Similarly, in this question, Choice B just conveys that there are other more significant issues as well. That does not mean that we should not build the mentioned parking ramp.
Hence, choice B does not make us question the mayor’s reasoning and therefore is not a correct weakener.

A correct weakener should convey that we can stimulate economic growth in the city even without this parking ramp. Choice C does the same and hence is the correct answer here.

Hope that helps,
Kanupriya

I take the explanations provided by the experts and other GMC members, but I want to clear a bit more of my thoughts...

If we build parking spaces nearby specifically not more than 2 blocks it will increase the number of shoppers coming to downtown but since building it more than 4 blocks away would also suffice and this should be ok to mark as answer. But the question in a way talks about the economic woes of the business in the downtown. Suppose there are other major problems associated for the economic woes and inspite of the number of shoppers increasing in downtown area the economic conditions might not improve. Suppose that there is a tax law in which the business have to pay an extra tax to do business or something other.

I accept the explanations but would like experts to through some more info regarding my thoughts...

GMATNinja KarishmaB