amoljain wrote:
Hello Expert
In the stated question, I do not concur with the idea that if 'some of the most' countries do it, why should the same be implied in the stated country. There could be more reasons as to why they are economically stable and the off-set of the law has been balanced out by some other scheme (let us say more working hours or 6-day weeks). The statement to me seems too broad to concretely weaken the conclusion.
Your insight would be really helpful. Thanks.
Fdambro294 wrote:
perhaps just a gap in my knowledge, but generally it always seems that with the Weaken or Strenghthen questions on the GMAT, showing how another city/person/nation/company/etc. reacts to something isn’t relevant to OUR city/person/nation/company etc.
After all, there could be major differences between the 2.
Definitely a wrong thought by me. Just pointing it out in case anyone else is in the same boat.
There are some cases where comparisons to similar entities can Weaken or Strengthen the given argument.
Posted from my mobile device
Hello,
amoljain and
Fdambro294. I agree that a country-to-country comparison does not present an ironclad case, but there are two reasons we cannot simply write off such answer choices:
1) Such a comparison may make the most compelling answer of the five presented; and
2)
SPOILER: Official CR questions, such as
this one on urban planning, can, on occasion, adopt the same reasoning in correct answer choices.
So, with these two points in mind, I would start by asking whether you believe an alternative option presents a better case as a weakener of this particular conclusion. After all, you are
always bound by what you see on the screen, and I do not bandy about such extreme language too often.
- Andrew
_________________
I am no longer contributing to GMAT Club. Please request an active Expert or a peer review if you have questions.