People who have political power tend to see new technologies

"technical ingenuity usually brings benefits to those who have this ingenuity,"
That is how I understand this sentence, so perhaps, I must have wrongly interpreted the word "ingenuity", this word should have the meaning of decency.

To me, this meant the political figures will give them the benefits (I was picturing a totalitarian dictatorship). But you may be right, and it is an interesting way to approach the question. Either way, we both got it right!

Dear nightblade354 VeritasKarishma IanStewart,

Is ethical inventiveness brings ONLY pain to those who have this inventiveness. the same thing as ethical inventiveness ONLY brings pain to those who have this inventiveness.? (I just flipped the positions of the 2 words)

Could you please explain the difference between those two?
I am still a bit confused why choice C. is incorrect.

Thank you!

varotkorn, the positioning of the wording does not matter in this case. Either way, they signify a necessary condition of pain to others.

Posted from my mobile device

This question is not at all like a real GMAT CR question (though it is similar to some LSAT problems). For one thing, GMAT CR questions don't include these types of sweeping, abstract and unverifiable claims ("People who have political power tend to see new technologies as a means of extending or protecting their power"). They instead include concrete scientific or historical facts.

But more importantly, real GMAT CR questions that ask you to strengthen an argument typically actually present an argument. The stem here is not an argument at all; there is no relationship between the first sentence and the second. The first talks about what "people who have power" think, while the conclusion talks about what people who have "technical ingenuity" and "ethical inventiveness" (I can't even guess what that phrase could mean) experience. Those aren't the same people, so there's no connection between the people mentioned in the first sentence and those in the second. The argument, as written, is a pure non sequitur. It only becomes an argument at all if we can connect the beliefs of those with power to the experiences of those with technical or ethical ingenuity. Only answer B does that, so it's the right answer.

Responding to a pm:

Politically powerful people consider new tech helpful but new ethical args threatening.
Conclusion: So tech creators benefit while ethics creators suffer. (that is the gist using simpler words)

We need to strengthen this:

(A) Those who offer new ways of justifying current political power often reap the benefits of their own innovations.

'Justifying' current political power is irrelevant to our argument.

(B) Politically powerful people tend to reward those who they believe are useful to them and to punish those who they believe are a threat.

The argument doesn't say how the belief system of politically powerful people actually impacts. How do we establish that tech creators benefit while ethics creators suffer? Just because politically powerful people consider new tech useful but new ethics threatening, how does that convert into benefit for tech creators and suffering for ethics creators? The options tells us what politically powerful people take action as per their belief system. They reward what they consider beneficial and punish what they consider a threat. Then it helps say that tech creators benefit and ethics creators suffer.

(C) Ethical inventiveness and technical ingenuity are never possessed by the same individuals

It doesn't matter either way. Technical ingenuity will bring benefit only when the people possessing it apply it and same goes for ethical inventiveness. Even if same individual possesses both, when this individual shows tech ingenuity, he benefits and when he shows ethical inventiveness, he suffers.

(D) New technologies are often used by people who strive to defeat those who currently have political power.

People who strive to defeat those with political power are irrelevant.

(E) Many people who possess ethical inventiveness conceal their novel ethical arguments for fear of retribution by the politically powerful.

The argument deals with new tech and ethical arguments so we are concerned with those who apply their ingenuity and inventiveness. Those who conceal are irrelevant.

Answer (B)

I do believe that bringing an assumption to light and making it an explicit fact is a way to strengthen an argument.

But even looking at C as an “assumption brought to light” type of support, why would the author need to assume that the two characteristics never describe the same person?


Say a person has both: A usually brings benefits to those who have it and B brings only pain to those who have it.

Even if A brought only benefits, a person could have both. She would benefit from the technical ingenuity and feel pain from the ethical inventiveness.

The author doesn’t need to assume that the 2 characteristics are mutually exclusive when he makes the conclusion.

Posted from my mobile device

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.