The following argument took place at a recent town meeting

Hi Karishma,

Are we not making additional assumption in Answer choice C such as "Tourists will sure be given tickets"?

It is logical that an increase in number of tickets given will result in an increase in number of tickets given to both locals and tourists. There is no reason to assume that tourists will not get more tickets too.

Hi Karishma,

Are we not making additional assumption in Answer choice C such as "Tourists will sure be given tickets"?[/quote]

It is logical that an increase in number of tickets given will result in an increase in number of tickets given to both locals and tourists. There is no reason to assume that tourists will not get more tickets too.[/quote]

Is it not logical to think most tourists do not drive?

Yes, its perfectly logical to think this:


But, what we are doing here is exposing possible ways that will hurt the argument. Since, flaw and assumption are two sides of the same coin, negation do work very well for flaw too....:
- does this support the argument ? Yes it does. It shows that the visitor, the main source of revenue, will return - thus strengthening the conclusion by eliminating other possible cause that may work against the prediction - "net positive effect on the town budget in the future".

The only problem I can see in this problem - C is more of a weakener than a flaw as it does provide an additional evidence and not a statement that is inherent to the logic of the argument.

There is no reason to assume that most tourists do not drive. In fact, in many cities, you do not have a good public transport system and hiring a car is the best option. In any case, even if say, only 10% tourists drive, considering that tourism is the main economic driver, it may actually lead to big numbers.

Hi Karishma,

Newspaper editor is claiming that the decision to fiscally worth it. "fiscally" here doesn't specify which revenue we are particularly talking about her. I am going to assume that fiscally means revenue from tickets issued + revenue from tourists.

For C to be correct, we need to assume that returning visitors contribute significantly to the revenue and the additional revenue from ticketing will not offset the decrease in revenue from the non returning customers.

For A to be correct, i do agree with that if the ticketing revenue < the salary offered, the hired personnel will still be getting some +ve revenue, except if ticketing hurts revenue from tourists (as in C).

No option seems iron clad.

VERITAS PREP OFFICIAL SOLUTION:

C. In this argument, the editor concludes that the town government is fiscally irresponsible because it is planning on spending $120,000 that it cannot afford. The town mayor responds strongly that the editor is wrong – that spending the $120,000 will actually be good for the town’s fiscal situation. Why? Because the parking enforcement officers typically bring in over twice what they are paid and spending $120,000 will thus create a “net positive effect on the town budget in the future.” The correct answer will weaken the quoted conclusion in the previous sentence. (A) is tricky because if there is such a saturation point, then additional officers might not bring in over twice what they are paid. However, the correct answer needs to show that there will NOT be a net positive effect on the budget and nothing in (A) proves this. Answer choice (B) strengthens the argument: not only will the town get more money from the extra parking officers, but it will also now get more from public transportation. (C) is correct as it shows that the new parking enforcement officers could create a net negative effect on the budget: if tourism is the most important revenue generator for the budget, and extra tickets could drive down tourism, then the new parking officers will not necessarily have a net positive effect. In (D) the higher fines combined with fewer tickets might produce more revenue or less revenue. This is unknown and thus does not weaken the mayor’s position. For (E), legal action relating unpaid tickets does not weaken the mayor’s argument – you have no idea how this would affect revenue for the town.

Can anyone here just explain what is difference between finding a flaw and weakening the argument?
Here, question stem ask for a flaw but eventually we end up with weakening the Mayor's argument.

In my view, when question ask for a flaw, we have to find a kind of assumption which will negatively impact the argument.
Yes. Similar case is occurring in case C but C is bluntly weakening the argument.

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.