|
|
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized
for You
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
27 Aug 2020, 02:45
Kudos
Bookmarks
The following appeared as part of an article in a magazine on lifestyles:
“Two years ago, City L was listed 14th in an annual survey that ranks cities according to the quality of life that can be enjoyed by those living in them. This information will enable people who are moving to the state in which City L is located to confidently identify one place, at least, where schools are good, housing is affordable, people are friendly, the environment is safe, and the arts flourish.”
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
=======================================================================================
The author believes that an annual "quality of life" survey ranking would enable people who are moving to the state in which City L is located to narrow down a place for living. The argument is based on numerous flawed assumptions and as we would see in following passages, there is no concrete evidence provided to support the claim.
In the passage the author indicates that rankings from survey that was conducted 2 years ago, would still help people moving to a city shortlist their place of residence. However, author seems to have ignored the possibility that the socio-economic situations in those cities might have drastically changed since then. To add to this, there is no indication provided that the survey has since then, been conducted again. Moreover, the survey is titled "Quality of Life" and there is no data provided as to how correlated the survey rankings are to the actual condition of the facilities like housing, schools etc. It would be fair to assume that "Quality of Life" is directly related with the condition of basic facilities in an area, but it would be a stretch to consider it as an over-arching indicator of everything that is important to make such a decision. Facilities like schools and housing can vary vastly even within a single city, so while a city might be ranked high in this survey, there is no guarantee that the ranking will help people in narrowing down to a single location.
Having looked at the above points, it is clear that the author's argument has been found wanting in certain areas and having additional context would certainly help. For example, it is not clear whether the survey in question has been conducted since it was last done 2 years ago. Furthermore, it has also not been pointed out which attributes make up the "quality of life" ranking as a whole in this survey, whether the availability and quality of schools is considered or not, whether people in the neighborhood being friendly has any bearing on this ranking or not, etc. If there was data available for all attributes that make up this ranking, it would have gone a long way in substantiating the author's claims.
In conclusion, we can see that the unsubstantiated assumptions in the argument fall flat in absence of any support for the argument. If there was more data in support of the argument, it could have stood in better light.
“Two years ago, City L was listed 14th in an annual survey that ranks cities according to the quality of life that can be enjoyed by those living in them. This information will enable people who are moving to the state in which City L is located to confidently identify one place, at least, where schools are good, housing is affordable, people are friendly, the environment is safe, and the arts flourish.”
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
=======================================================================================
The author believes that an annual "quality of life" survey ranking would enable people who are moving to the state in which City L is located to narrow down a place for living. The argument is based on numerous flawed assumptions and as we would see in following passages, there is no concrete evidence provided to support the claim.
In the passage the author indicates that rankings from survey that was conducted 2 years ago, would still help people moving to a city shortlist their place of residence. However, author seems to have ignored the possibility that the socio-economic situations in those cities might have drastically changed since then. To add to this, there is no indication provided that the survey has since then, been conducted again. Moreover, the survey is titled "Quality of Life" and there is no data provided as to how correlated the survey rankings are to the actual condition of the facilities like housing, schools etc. It would be fair to assume that "Quality of Life" is directly related with the condition of basic facilities in an area, but it would be a stretch to consider it as an over-arching indicator of everything that is important to make such a decision. Facilities like schools and housing can vary vastly even within a single city, so while a city might be ranked high in this survey, there is no guarantee that the ranking will help people in narrowing down to a single location.
Having looked at the above points, it is clear that the author's argument has been found wanting in certain areas and having additional context would certainly help. For example, it is not clear whether the survey in question has been conducted since it was last done 2 years ago. Furthermore, it has also not been pointed out which attributes make up the "quality of life" ranking as a whole in this survey, whether the availability and quality of schools is considered or not, whether people in the neighborhood being friendly has any bearing on this ranking or not, etc. If there was data available for all attributes that make up this ranking, it would have gone a long way in substantiating the author's claims.
In conclusion, we can see that the unsubstantiated assumptions in the argument fall flat in absence of any support for the argument. If there was more data in support of the argument, it could have stood in better light.
Moderators:
188 posts
