Events & Promotions
|
|
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.
Apr 2212:30 AM EDT
-01:30 AM EDT
At one point, she believed GMAT wasn’t for her. After scoring 595, self-doubt crept in and she questioned her potential. But instead of quitting, she made the right strategic changes. The result? A remarkable comeback to 695. Check out how Saakshi did it.
Apr 1612:00 PM EDT
-11:59 PM EDT
You’re first to know: Save $200 on GMAT prep starting tomorrow, 4/13. Get 6 official practice tests and study with real questions. Be ready to save!
Apr 2301:30 AM EDT
-02:30 AM EDT
Struggling with GMAT Verbal as a non-native speaker? Harsh improved his score from 595 to 695 in just 45 days—and scored a 99 %ile in Verbal (V88)! Learn how smart strategy, clarity, and guided prep helped him gain 100 points.
Apr 2308:00 PM PDT
-09:00 PM PDT
Video explanations + diagnosis of 10 weakest areas + 150+ short videos + study plan!
Apr 2610:00 AM EDT
-11:00 AM EDT
The Target Test Prep course represents a quantum leap forward in GMAT preparation, a radical reinterpretation of the way that students should study. Try before you buy with a 5-day, full-access trial of the course for FREE!
Apr 2711:00 AM EDT
-12:00 PM EDT
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors
Apr 2808:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
D
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
95%
(hard)
Question Stats:
38% (01:58) correct
62%
(02:08)
wrong
based on 973
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Politician: From the time our party took office almost four years ago the number of people unemployed city-wide increased by less than 20 percent. The opposition party controlled city government during the four preceding years, and the number of unemployed city residents rose by over 20 percent. Thus, due to our leadership, fewer people now find themselves among the ranks of the unemployed, whatever the opposition may claim.
The reasoning in the politician’s argument is most vulnerable to the criticism that
(A) the claims made by the opposition are simply dismissed without being specified
(B) no evidence has been offered to show that any decline in unemployment over the past four years was uniform throughout all areas of the city
(C) the issue of how much unemployment in the city is affected by seasonal fluctuations is ignored
(D) the evidence cited in support of the conclusion actually provides more support for the denial of the conclusion
(E) the possibility has not been addressed that any increase in the number of people employed is due to programs supported by the opposition party
Source: LSAT
The reasoning in the politician’s argument is most vulnerable to the criticism that
(A) the claims made by the opposition are simply dismissed without being specified
(B) no evidence has been offered to show that any decline in unemployment over the past four years was uniform throughout all areas of the city
(C) the issue of how much unemployment in the city is affected by seasonal fluctuations is ignored
(D) the evidence cited in support of the conclusion actually provides more support for the denial of the conclusion
(E) the possibility has not been addressed that any increase in the number of people employed is due to programs supported by the opposition party
Source: LSAT
05 Oct 2017, 03:03
Kudos
Bookmarks
This is a weaken question. With these, it's important to look as closely as possible at the premises and the conclusion. Make sure you don't change the words as they're written to fix a bad argument. Often, the arguments made in CR passages are so terrible that, in taking notes, you end up making them better. Don't do it!
Politician: From the time our party took office almost four years ago the number of people unemployed city-wide increased by less than 20 percent. The opposition party controlled city government during the four preceding years, and the number of unemployed city residents rose by over 20 percent. Thus, due to our leadership, fewer people now find themselves among the ranks of the unemployed, whatever the opposition may claim.
Conclusion: Fewer people are unemployed because of party
Premise: Our party saw unemployment increase by less than 20%, other party by more than 20%
At first glance, this may look like a typical "percent isn't the same as number" kind of question. But look closely at the conclusion. The party is saying fewer people are unemployed, when they admit that there was an INCREASE in unemployment! Just because it was less than 20% doesn't make it a decrease. In reality, the fact cited totally undermines that conclusion.
The reasoning in the politician’s argument is most vulnerable to the criticism that
(A) the claims made by the opposition are simply dismissed without being specified
Problem: This argument has nothing to do with what the opposition did or didn't do. In fact, all that stuff about opposition is a big red herring. All we care about is whether or not there are "fewer people" unemployed now than before the party took power.
(B) no evidence has been offered to show that any decline in unemployment over the past four years was uniform throughout all areas of the city
Problem: Unemployment density is immaterial; we just need the overall number.
(C) the issue of how much unemployment in the city is affected by seasonal fluctuations is ignored
Problem: This doesn't address the data we've been given, and is irrelevant.
(D) the evidence cited in support of the conclusion actually provides more support for the denial of the conclusion
Answer: Yep. If unemployment INCREASED, even by 2%, that would lead one to the conclusion that MORE people are unemployed, not fewer.
(E) the possibility has not been addressed that any increase in the number of people employed is due to programs supported by the opposition party
Problem: This is tempting, because it makes it sound like the opposition might have had some effect on a later increase in employment. However, there was no increase! There was only a decrease of "less than 20%".
Politician: From the time our party took office almost four years ago the number of people unemployed city-wide increased by less than 20 percent. The opposition party controlled city government during the four preceding years, and the number of unemployed city residents rose by over 20 percent. Thus, due to our leadership, fewer people now find themselves among the ranks of the unemployed, whatever the opposition may claim.
Conclusion: Fewer people are unemployed because of party
Premise: Our party saw unemployment increase by less than 20%, other party by more than 20%
At first glance, this may look like a typical "percent isn't the same as number" kind of question. But look closely at the conclusion. The party is saying fewer people are unemployed, when they admit that there was an INCREASE in unemployment! Just because it was less than 20% doesn't make it a decrease. In reality, the fact cited totally undermines that conclusion.
The reasoning in the politician’s argument is most vulnerable to the criticism that
(A) the claims made by the opposition are simply dismissed without being specified
Problem: This argument has nothing to do with what the opposition did or didn't do. In fact, all that stuff about opposition is a big red herring. All we care about is whether or not there are "fewer people" unemployed now than before the party took power.
(B) no evidence has been offered to show that any decline in unemployment over the past four years was uniform throughout all areas of the city
Problem: Unemployment density is immaterial; we just need the overall number.
(C) the issue of how much unemployment in the city is affected by seasonal fluctuations is ignored
Problem: This doesn't address the data we've been given, and is irrelevant.
(D) the evidence cited in support of the conclusion actually provides more support for the denial of the conclusion
Answer: Yep. If unemployment INCREASED, even by 2%, that would lead one to the conclusion that MORE people are unemployed, not fewer.
(E) the possibility has not been addressed that any increase in the number of people employed is due to programs supported by the opposition party
Problem: This is tempting, because it makes it sound like the opposition might have had some effect on a later increase in employment. However, there was no increase! There was only a decrease of "less than 20%".
03 Apr 2021, 00:00
Kudos
Bookmarks
broall
OFFICIAL EXPLANATION
(A) No. The politician only needs to support the conclusion that “fewer people now find themselves among the ranks of the unemployed”; He is not required to specifically refute the opposition’s position. Even so, he does implicitly address the opposition, which apparently claims that a greater or equal number of people are unemployed now than four years
ago.
(B) No. This is irrelevant. The politician’s claim is about the “number of people unemployed city-wide” and does not concern differences in employment that might exist among different neighborhoods in the city.
(C) No. This is irrelevant. Since both the politician’s party and the opposition’s party held office for four years, annual seasonal fluctuations should have no
impact on overall employment.
(D) Yes. Although the percentage increase in unemployment was less than it was under the previous administration, it still did increase. So by definition, there are now more people unemployed than before.
(E) No. The politician’s claim concerns programs that were implemented under the leadership of his party. Whatever programs were supported by the opposition is irrelevant.
