Bunuel wrote:
Donations of imported food will be distributed to children in famine-stricken countries in the form of free school meals. The process is efficient because the children are easy to reach at the schools and cooking facilities are often available on site.
Which of the following, if true, casts the most serious doubt on the efficiency of the proposed process?
A. The emphasis on food will detract from the major function of the schools, which is to educate the children.
B. A massive influx of donated food will tend to lower the price of food in the areas near the schools.
C. Supplies of fuel needed for cooking at the schools arrive there only intermittently and in inadequate quantities.
D. The reduction in farm surpluses in donor countries benefits the donor countries to a greater extent than the recipient countries are benefited by the donations.
E. The donation of food tends to strengthen the standing of the political party that happens to be in power when the donation is made.
CR90661.01
Verbal Review 2020 NEW QUESTION
On this question, we're looking to weaken, or cast doubt... but we need to be careful what we're trying to cast doubt on. If we're casting doubt on the efficiency, we want reason to believe that despite that "the children are easy to reach at the schools" and "cooking facilities are often available on site," this may not be an efficient plan. Let's take a look at our answers...
A. The emphasis on food will detract from the major function of the schools, which is to educate the children.
<- This answer, while providing a possible negative outcome of the plan, does not impact the potential efficiency of the plan based on the evidence given. It is thus, irrelevant to the question we're trying to answer.B. A massive influx of donated food will tend to lower the price of food in the areas near the schools.
<- Again, this doesn't impact whether it makes sense to use the evidence cited to draw the conclusion given. C. Supplies of fuel needed for cooking at the schools arrive there only intermittently and in inadequate quantities.
<- This impacts our argument, as it gives us reason why despite having facilities onsite to cook, those facilities may not be reliable/consistently available for use and, thus, may not provide an efficient/effective plan. We'll want to look at our remaining answer choices, but this one's looking pretty promising!D. The reduction in farm surpluses in donor countries benefits the donor countries to a greater extent than the recipient countries are benefited by the donations.
<- Whether the program is of more benefit to one than the other doesn't matter to us here.E. The donation of food tends to strengthen the standing of the political party that happens to be in power when the donation is made.
<- Again, pretty irrelevant to the argument being made. So, in this question in particular, many of the answer choices addressed a potential impact to the situation at large/those affected - but only one weakened the specific argument being made. If we can identify the argument structure and specifically what the question is asking us for, analysis of the answer choices becomes far more efficient (clearly - a recurring topic in this question!) and we are able to determine that
(C) is the only answer that weakens the connection between "The process is efficient" and its premises: "the children are easy to reach at the schools and cooking facilities are often available on site."
_________________
Hailey Cusimano
GMAT Tutor and Instructor