Per a recent survey carried out in Rambo City, capital of Papula count

Per a recent survey carried out in Rambo City, capital of Papula country, an average middle-aged person drives his or her car for two thousand miles in a year and 99% of these people own a gasoline-run car. In addition, the survey suggested that if offered an economical option to switch to electric cars, most of these people would change their gasoline-run cars. The government of Papula is impressed with the environmental considerations shown by the citizens of Papula and is planning to implement a plan that would allow all the current owners of gasoline-run cars to switch to electric cars at a minimal cost.

Premise: Average middle man drives a car- of these- 99 percent drive gasoline -->They want to switch

To cast doubt on the conclusion: we have to attack the highlighted part... saying that middle aged people are few and this law would not benifit all.

Which of the following statements casts the most doubt on the ability of the plan to meet its required objective of significantly reducing air pollution in Papula in the next 5 years?

A. Though some of the citizens are concerned about the negative environmental impact of air pollution, they will not spend any extra money to protect the environment.
B. The budget deficit of the government of Papula is already at alarming levels, and any further increase in the deficit could lead to the bankruptcy of the country.
C. Since Papula is an aging country, with more than half its population near retirement age, the chief consideration for a large number of its citizens is the convenience to drive rather than the costs to do so.
Choice C does exactly the same. It attacks the assumption that formulating a law for the middle aged is not so benificial
D. In the last two decades, Papula has emerged as a major economic hub, leading to an increase in the living standard of its citizens and in the number of cars in the region.
E. Since people who don’t own gasoline cars would not be benefitted from the proposed plan, they may strongly oppose the use of taxpayer money on such a plan.

Hi aditya111, just a reminder when evaluating plan questions that the goal is to see whether or not the plan will succeed. If you believe the answer is C, there needs to be some kind of indication that driving gasoline-powered cars is more convenient than driving an electric car. I do not see any evidence of this, so I'm not sure how we can support C. I do not know the official answer, although I suspect it to be A.

If you can find support as to why gasoline-cars are more convenient for middle-aged drivers (or any driver) using the text, then C could indeed be the correct answer. Taking it one step further, if cost is not the chief concern, then a more convenient car that also happens to be more expensive becomes more attractive, making answer choice C a strengthener of the plan, not a weakener.

Please let me know if this isn't clear in any way
Thanks!
-Ron

Evaluation: the ability of the plan to meet its required objective of significantly reducing air pollution in Papula in the next 5 years

A. Though some of the citizens are concerned about the negative environmental impact of air pollution, they will not spend any extra money to protect the environment.
>>> This is the close contender, but the use of "Some" made me to go towards C. I am assuming "Some" can be 0-99. In percentages, it can mean 0.00001% of people. Hence I did not go with A.


B. The budget deficit of the government of Papula is already at alarming levels, and any further increase in the deficit could lead to the bankruptcy of the country.
>>> OFS. Since the main aim is "pollution control", huge budget deficit does not change anything.

C. Since Papula is an aging country, with more than half its population near retirement age, the chief consideration for a large number of its citizens is the convenience to drive rather than the costs to do so.
I will go with C because the plan does not focus on convenience at all, it just cares about cost. "More than half" makes it the best answer.
One point of doubt is that we don't know if electric cars will be inconvenient, but I will give it benefit of doubt since the primary concern of the proposed plan is "cost".

D. In the last two decades, Papula has emerged as a major economic hub, leading to an increase in the living standard of its citizens and in the number of cars in the region.
This actually strengthens the argument a bit. More people can afford the electric car

E. Since people who don’t own gasoline cars would not be benefitted from the proposed plan, they may strongly oppose the use of taxpayer money on such a plan.
No govt cares about protesters anyways...

God waiting for a day seems to be too long for the soln...

Actually waiting a day for the official answer is fostering some good discussions with multiple opportunities to review interesting GMAT concepts!

Soumens, you seem to be oscillating between A and C, and using assumptions to come to a definitive conclusion. We always need to ensure the assumptions we make are supported, though. The problem with your assumption in A "Some" can be 0-99" is unfortunately incorrect. That definition actually applies to "not all". Not all implies it can be any amount that is not 100%, so anywhere from 0-99% fits that definition.

Some is essentially the converse of not all. Some just means not 0, up to and including everyone. In similar math terms, it would be 1-100%. I know this is a difficult concept because we cover it in the very first Veritas class and many students have trouble with it. We're all used to the colloquial usage of some to mean, roughly "a small amount". More than that and we tend to use "most" or "a lot". On the GMAT, it is important to know that "some" can mean "all".

To use a simple example to illustrate, I was reading a thread earlier today about someone on this site who wanted a good GMAT score. Thus I can say that "some people on GMATClub want to get a good GMAT score". This is assuredly true because I have at least one example. However, it does not preclude everyone on this site from wanting a good GMAT score. In fact, it's likely that everyone here wants a good score, but if I could find a single user who doesn't want a good GMAT score, then I could claim "not all the people on GMATClub want to get a good GMAT score" because I have at least one example.

These concepts are useful because incorrectly interpreting definitions of words on the GMAT can lead you down the wrong path and leave valuable points on the table that you could easily get. You can replace all instances of "some" with "not zero" in your head, in contrast of the oft used "not all".

If the concept of some/all is clear, A should stand out as the answer. Choice C, as I mentioned in the above post, actually strengthens the plan because it indicates that cost is not a primary concern. This means that many citizens would happily switch to electric cars, assuming we knew anything about convenience, thus supporting the proposed plan. Some of the answers that require you to give the GMAT "the benefit of the doubt" are traps playing on your preconceived notions. And by some... I mean all!

Hope this helps!
-Ron

Thanks for the detailed explanation Ron.

Yep. I am wrong about some being 0-99. Of course it is 1-100. I was dumb enough to forget the segmentation words.

And yes I do see your logic that C is out, as nothing is mentioned about convenience.

So I see that A does weaken, but I have a quick question about it.

When we are dealing with numbers, some denotes 1-100. But with percentages can't it include anything >0 (.00000001% for instance). If that's the case, then the number can be pretty insignificant. right ??

I think I had committed the same mistake in another Q during my study.

Hey Soumens, no problem, I like these kinds of responses because they let others read through common GMAT pitfalls and hopefully help everyone avoid the traps set up for us.

To answer your question: Absolutely some can mean any non-zero number, including 0.00000001%. To put that number in perspective (10^-8)% means 10^-10, or one out of 10 billion. That's roughly the same percentage as saying "some people on this planet are the current US president". Yeah, about 1 in 7 billion. The number can be completely insignificant, but it is not 0. That's really all it means.

I think I see where you're going here, by saying that potentially very few people are implicated in answer choice A, you believe that it is not necessarily representative of the population as a whole. Let's revisit the phrasing of the answer choice:

Though some of the citizens are concerned about the negative environmental impact of air pollution, they will not spend any extra money to protect the environment.

This is saying that some (1 person up to say 5 million or whatever in the city) people care about the environment, but they won't spend money to protect it. Assuming this number is something microscopic, what does this infer about people who don't even care about the environment? They wouldn't lift a finger even if it didn't cost them a thing. So, regardless what the proportion it is between people who care but won't pay and the people who flat out don't care, the plan won't achieve its stated goal of reducing air polution.

Hope this helps!
-Ron

Ron I am confused between choice A and C as well. I understand your explanation behind choice A. however I felt that this choice did not provide any new information. The argument already says that
Does this not mean that there are some people who will not switch to electric cars even if electric cars are economical. The argument already provides this information.

I felt choice C as the correct answer because it says that a majority of the population is concerned about convenience. The government has not taken into consideration "convenienve" at all while creating the plan. Because of this new information, I felt that I was no longer very convinced that the plan will succeed.

One more question: thank you for your explanation about "some". completely makes sense. I always thought some and few are interchangable. Is this true?

Hi Nitin2582, congratulations, you've managed to make me rethink my answer choice here. I disagreed with C because it brings up a topic that we cannot possibly discern from the text, as there is nothing about convenience in the text. However, if the plan is going to work, it is because people are willing to make the change. If the cost is minimal, but the convenience hasn't been taken into account, then people who find the switch inconvenient won't do it, even though they can well afford the dollar amount.

The other aspect that makes me think C might be the correct choice is that it starts off with 15 irrelevent words "Since Papula is an aging country, with more than half its population near retirement age", which is a classic GMAT trick to make you ignore the choice. The subsequent words are important, though. It is entirely conceivable that the population would make decisions based on convenience and not price, which would make C a legitimate answer for the plan failing. As stated before, I'm not sure which the official choice is, but your defense of C has made me definitely consider it as a contender.

As for your other question about "some" vs "few", few is not a word encountered frequently on the GMAT, but it certainly means non-zero as well. To be a few, you need to have at least one, and possibly more. I wouldn't say it could replace some in most GMAT sentences, but it certainly could be used to indicate a non-zero number in a critical reasoning question.

Looking forward to the official answer!
-Ron

i guess this argument has been poorly formulated :
the options C has to make some assumptions before it is credited as answer
how do we know what is more convenient ? i mean u cant just randomly assume that a gasoline car is more convenient. !! who knows? an elderly man might hate noise and gasoline cars make lot of noise as compared to electric cars !!
also the question stem never say that the plan if implemented wud be success or not so the fact is that we can very well question on the possibility of its happening or not happening and that is what B
does it raises question on th first place that plan is very difficult to implemented
i think Egmat sud rephrase the question stem by saying the plan if implemented wud blah blah blha....in order to eliminate B as a contender

Hi Aditya8062,

You have raised primarily two concerns: the first of which is a very common doubt faced by the students. Let’s tackle your concerns one by one.



Common doubt: Can a weakener make assumptions to weaken the conclusion?

Answer: Yes. In most of the OG questions, weakeners don’t disprove the conclusion by themselves. They need to make certain assumptions, in order to invalidate the conclusion.

For example: Consider the below GMAT Prep question:

According to the Tristate Transportation Authority, making certain improvements to the main commuter rail line would increase ridership dramatically. The authority plans to finance these improvements over the course of five years by raising automobile tolls on the two high-way bridges along the route the rail line serves. Although the proposed improvements are indeed needed, the authority’s plan for securing the necessary funds should be rejected because it would unfairly force drivers to absorb the entire cost of something from which they receive no benefit.

Which of the following, if true, would cast the most doubt on the effectiveness of the authority’s plan to
finance the proposed improvements by increasing bridge tolls?
(A) Before the authority increases tolls on any of the area bridges, it is required by law to hold public hearings at which objections to the proposed increase can be raised.
(B) Whenever bridge tolls are increased, the authority must pay a private contractor to adjust the automated toll-collecting machines.
(C) Between the time a proposed toll increase is announced and the time the increase is actually put into effect, many commuters buy more tokens than usual to postpone the effects of the increase.
(D) When tolls were last increased on the two bridges in question, almost 20 percent of the regular commuter traffic switched to a slightly longer alternative route that has since been improved.
(E) The chairman of the authority is a member of the Tristate Automobile Club that has registered strong opposition to the proposed toll increase.


What is the correct answer here?
The answer is Choice D.

Now, one can see that Choice D needs to make a number of assumptions for it to weaken the argument. Two of the assumptions are:

1. The pattern of traffic that was seen last time would be repeated this time also. This assumption is needed since Choice D talks about a pattern in the past and if the past pattern is not expected to be repeated, the choice doesn’t have an impact on the conclusion.

2. The authority needs at least 70%-80% of the current traffic to achieve its financial goals. If this is not true, then even if 20% or 30% of the traffic gets diverted, it won’t have an impact on the plan.

In light of the fact that Choice D needs to make the above assumptions, can we call Choice D incorrect? The answer is No. The reason is that the question stem doesn't ask us to select an answer choice which conclusively breaks down the conclusion. The question stem asks us to select a statement that “casts doubt” on the effective of the plan.
So, after reading Choice D, we don’t really disbelieve in the authority’s plan; we are just less sure of it now. Now, we may need to ask additional questions to get back our belief in the plan?

The same is the case with the given question of Papula country. Option C brings in new information, which says that the priority of retirees is convenience rather than costs. Does it say that gasoline cars are more convenient that electric cars? No. But it brings up a point (convenience), which has not been considered so far. It just makes us little less sure of the plan. Now, we may need to ask certain questions to shore up our belief in the plan.



Consider the above GMAT Prep question again and look at both the question stem and the Option E. The question stem doesn’t say that the plan “if implemented” and Option E does raises a doubt that the plan might not be implemented at all. Is Option E the correct choice? No.

Why?

The reason is that the question stem is talking about the effectiveness of the plan to achieve something and option E is saying that the plan might not be implemented. So, they are actually going in tangential directions. Let’s take below analogy to understand this:

A: Given that we enjoyed our visit to the zoo last time, we should plan to go to zoo this time to make the maximum out of our time.
B: You are wrong. We cannot go to zoo time because the zoo has been closed for public.

Does B weaken A’s conclusion? The answer is No. Because A is not talking about whether going to zoo is possible or not, it is just saying that going there will lead to enjoyment.
Similar is the case with Option E of the GMAT Prep question and Option B of our question.

I hope the above explanation helps in clarifying certain doubts.



It is always easier to point fingers at the quality of the questions but the key to learning is to understand not only why correct choices are correct but also why incorrect choices are so. I would have appreciated your concerns a lot more if you had raised your doubts in a pertinent manner instead of making value judgments about the quality of the question.

Thanks,
Chiranjeev

To egmat : u got me wrong . i never said that u cannot make assumption in weakener and strengthner questions .u can make but only when u running too close with answer choices .plus those assumptions cant be just anything :for instance in ur question the convenience factor can have lot of ramifications
.plz read what i wrote abt convenience factor in my previous post

The question that u have quoted from gmat prep i don't think we need any assumption there for choice D for the simple reason that all the rest of the choice are too bad !! plus if i need to raise 100 $ then a defict of 20 $ is going to hurt me thats the reason it casts most doubt coz all other choice are not leading anywhere
even the choice E that u talking of isn't valid simply because raising an objection to a plan doesn't mean ,by any stretch of imagination,that plan will not get implemented
moreover ur reasoning for equating option B of ur question to option E of this gmat prep question isn't valid either .for the simple reason that option B is explaining the economics as why plan is so difficult to implement .if u r on the brink of economic crisis (as stated by B ) then it is attacking ur plan .after all what u plan was doing ? it was providing some economical option !! from where will it raise that money ....?thats what B raises .plz note that unlike option E(of prep) option B (ur quesiton) isn't just an objection raised by somebody !!
i again say :u can make assumptions in weakener and strengthener choices of gmat cr but only under certain condition and mostly we need to avoid such assumptions in answer choices and they sud be able to stand of their own

Hi Aditya8062,

I would just make a quick reply. I apologize in advance if it doesn’t resolve your queries.

Here’s how you started your reasoning in the last post:
Actually, I could only infer from this that you think that any choice which makes assumptions is a poor choice. That’s why I started my post that way. I am sorry if I was wrong in my interpretation.


Go through this OG question. It might help:
paper-print-is-a-chain-of-british-stores-selling-65446.html


I have given explanations to support why those assumptions are needed in the gmat prep question. Request you to have a relook at them.


Please have a relook at the passage. It doesn’t say that implementing the plan will cause economic burden on the government. It doesn't even talk about government subsidy.


I have to disagree here. In almost every weaken question, you’ll need to make assumptions. You just can’t avoid them in most of the cases. Have a look at the question in the link posted above.

I think your doubts are very interesting and valid but I am sorry I cannot make a detailed post at this point in time.

Thanks,
Chiranjeev

MY VIEW

Per a recent survey carried out in Rambo City, capital of Papula country, an average middle-aged person drives his or her car for two thousand miles in a year and 99% of these people own a gasoline-run car. In addition, the survey suggested that if offered an economical option to switch to electric cars, most of these people would change their gasoline-run cars. The government of Papula is impressed with the environmental considerations shown by the citizens of Papula and is planning to implement a plan that would allow all the current owners of gasoline-run cars to switch to electric cars at a minimal cost.

Which of the following statements casts the most doubt on the ability of the plan to meet its required objective of significantly reducing air pollution in Papula in the next 5 years?
A. Though some of the citizens are concerned about the negative environmental impact of air pollution, they will not spend any extra money to protect the environment. (INCORRECT As it talks about one some of the citizens not most of or all of them, so there are chances that the govts plan may succeed as a bigh chunk of population may be in favour of plan)
B. The budget deficit of the government of Papula is already at alarming levels, and any further increase in the deficit could lead to the bankruptcy of the country. (INCORECT As bankruptcy of the of the government was never a concern discussed in the topic)
C. Since Papula is an aging country, with more than half its population near retirement age, the chief consideration for a large number of its citizens is the convenience to drive rather than the costs to do so. (CORRECT As a plan can succeed only if the larger mass of population participates in it, this point clearly states that half of the population might not go in favour of the plan and the plan may fail)
D. In the last two decades, Papula has emerged as a major economic hub, leading to an increase in the living standard of its citizens and in the number of cars in the region.(INCORRECT As rise in level of living standerds does not clearly indicates to the concusnes of the people about the pollution this point indicates that people might go in favour of plan)
E. Since people who don’t own gasoline cars would not be benefitted from the proposed plan, they may strongly oppose the use of taxpayer money on such a plan.(INCORRECT As opposition from a smaller population cant change the plan supported by bigger population)[/quote]

[/quote]

Hi Raushan,

Your answer is correct and reasoning almost correct. Kudos!

However, for options B and C, have a look at the official explanations. These options are incorrect because they are targeting (weakening) the possibility of the implementation of plan while the question stem is only concerned about the scenario when the plan gets implemented.

As I see this was your first post. Welcome to GmatClub. Good Job!

Thanks,
Chiranjeev

Assumptions
1) The government assumes that electric cars have no environmental effect - Well this hasn`t been mentioned anywhere in the passage

I`m not convinced with C) because no where it is mentioned that electric cars are not convenient to drive.
Also it is not mentioned whether gasoline cars are convenient to drive.

The only advantage here is that this shifts the deciding criteria to a convenient model from environmental concern.
Kindly explain.

Hi Vignesh,

I am not sure what your doubt is but as far as assumptions are concerned, they are not mentioned in the passage. Also, the author or different actors in the passage can make different assumptions. That is perfectly fine. Have a look at OG questions; you'll see that a lot of common sense and not-so-common-sense assumptions are made in the arguments.




You are correct that the only thing option C does is bring in a factor which has not been considered before. Have a look at below OG question:

paper-print-is-a-chain-of-british-stores-selling-65446.html

In this, you'll see that correct option B does bring in a new factor (that Paper&Print is known more for its magazines than stationery) and you can also see that just because Paper&Print is known for magazines, it doesn't really mean that it's profits won't go up. The point of a weakener is to cast doubt on the conclusion - some weakeners cast a strong doubt, some not-so-strong. I suggest you do OG CR questions, you''ll realize all these nuances.

Thanks
Chiranjeev

Hi e-gmat,

I agree with your explanations for C.

I chose option D, since it states that there will be an increase in number of cars in the region(has emearged ---> leading to)

Now, the arguments states that "The government is planning to implement a plan that would allow all the current owners of gasoline-run cars to switch to electric cars at a minimal cost."

Since, it mentions that the plan allows only for current owners, we cannot say that the new cars(increase in number of cars) will be the electric cars and not the gasoline-cars.

Please throw some light..