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.
Nov 1912:30 PM EST
-01:30 PM EST
Learn how Keshav, a Chartered Accountant, scored an impressive 705 on GMAT in just 30 days with GMATWhiz's expert guidance. In this video, he shares preparation tips and strategies that worked for him, including the mock, time management, and more
Nov 2007:30 AM PST
-08:30 AM PST
Learn what truly sets the UC Riverside MBA apart and how it helps in your professional growth
Nov 2001:30 PM EST
-02:30 PM IST
Learn how Kamakshi achieved a GMAT 675 with an impressive 96th %ile in Data Insights. Discover the unique methods and exam strategies that helped her excel in DI along with other sections for a balanced and high score.
Nov 2211:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Do RC/MSR passages scare you? e-GMAT is conducting a masterclass to help you learn – Learn effective reading strategies Tackle difficult RC & MSR with confidence Excel in timed test environment- Nov 23
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease. 
Nov 2407:00 PM PST
-08:00 PM PST
Full-length FE mock with insightful analytics, weakness diagnosis, and video explanations!
Nov 2510:00 AM EST
-11:00 AM EST
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.
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:
37% (01:58) correct
63%
(02:07)
wrong
based on 931
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.
