Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases https://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 24 May 2017, 00:40

### 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

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# Press secretary: Our critics claim that the President's

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Senior Manager
Joined: 10 Dec 2004
Posts: 272
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 171 [16] , given: 0

Press secretary: Our critics claim that the President's [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 May 2005, 08:18
16
KUDOS
86
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

95% (hard)

Question Stats:

41% (02:40) correct 59% (02:00) wrong based on 3329 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Press secretary: Our critics claim that the President's recent highway project cancellations demonstrate a vindictive desire to punish legislative districts controlled by opposition parties. They offer as evidence the fact that 90% of the projects cancelled were in such districts. But all of the cancelled projects had been identified as wasteful in a report written by respected nonpartisan auditors. So the President's choice was clearly motivated by sound budgetary policy, not partisan politics.
Which of the following is an assumption on which the press secretary's argument depends?
A. Canceling highway projects was not the only way for the President to punish legislative districts controlled by opposition parties.
B. The scheduled highway projects identified as wasteful in the report were not mostly projects in districts controlled by the President's party.
C. The number of projects cancelled was a significant proportion of all the highway projects that were to be undertaken by the government in the near future.
D. Nonpartisan auditors were President's friends.
E. Reports by nonpartisan auditors are not generally regarded by the opposition parties as a source of objective assessment of government projects.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

_________________

"Forums are meant to benefit all. No one is interested in knowing what your guesses are. Please explain the reasoning behind the answer you chose. This will also help you organize your thoughts quickly during the exam."

Last edited by pqhai on 11 Dec 2013, 02:04, edited 1 time in total.
If you have any questions
New!
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 7370
Location: Pune, India
Followers: 2285

Kudos [?]: 15092 [34] , given: 224

Re: Press secretary: Our critics claim that the President's [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Jan 2013, 20:25
34
KUDOS
Expert's post
5
This post was
BOOKMARKED
thangvietnam wrote:
hard one.
I can not prethink an assumption before going to the answer choices. experts, pls, come in . how to do this?

Pre-thinking an assumption can really help you stay on track and identify the correct answer quickly. There may be multiple assumptions but pre-thinking is useful in most cases because you understand the argument well before jumping into the options.

Argument:
There are districts controlled and the President and there are some controlled by the opposition parties. The President canceled some projects. 90% of those were located in the opposition party districts. So opposition has been crying foul. The secretary is defending the President. He says that all of these were identified as wasteful by non partisan auditors.
Conclusion: the President's choice was clearly motivated by sound budgetary policy, not partisan politics.

Now we have to think an assumption for this conclusion.

Think of a political argument in which you are taking part. You have to assume that whatever the other person says is the truth. You have to put forward a counter point keeping that in mind. So the other person says, 'all of these were identified as wasteful by non partisan auditors.'
The question that should come to your mind is: which other projects did the non partisan auditors identify as wasteful? Say, they identified 20 wasteful projects. 12 from the President's districts and 8 from the opposition's. What if the President chose all the projects to be canceled from the 8 wasteful projects of the opposition's districts? Everything said in the argument stays true but the conclusion becomes invalid. The President would have been motivated by partisan politics in that case.
The assumption you are looking for: Not many of the projects identified as wasteful were from the President's districts.

_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
My Blog

Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for $199 Veritas Prep Reviews SVP Joined: 03 Jan 2005 Posts: 2236 Followers: 16 Kudos [?]: 342 [19] , given: 0 Re: CR - press sec [#permalink] ### Show Tags 22 May 2005, 22:59 19 This post received KUDOS 6 This post was BOOKMARKED Opposing argument: President carries partisan politics. Fact: 90% project cancelled are by opposing party. Counter argument: All the cancelled project have been identified as bad by a nonpartisan auditor. What is the missing link here? What if the auditor has identified many projects by the controlling party as well as by the opposing party as wasteful and the president only cancels the opposing party ones? To make the press secretary's argument work one has to make the assumption that there aren't a lot of bad projects in the controling party district in the auditor's report. Therefore (B) would be the correct answer. _________________ Keep on asking, and it will be given you; keep on seeking, and you will find; keep on knocking, and it will be opened to you. VP Joined: 30 Sep 2004 Posts: 1482 Location: Germany Followers: 6 Kudos [?]: 347 [6] , given: 0 ### Show Tags 22 May 2005, 14:52 6 This post received KUDOS 3 This post was BOOKMARKED IMO its B)...negate B) => "The scheduled highway projects identified as wasteful in the report were mostly projects in districts controlled by the President's party". so the author was not driven by sound budgetary policy, but by the fact that most of the wastefult projects are in his districts. so he is partisan. ...negate E) "Reports by nonpartisan auditors are generally regarded by the opposition parties as a source of objective assessment of government projects". when even the oppositon thinks that this report is objective, then it should be fine to conclude that the president is not partisan but just a politician who is concerned about the economy. _________________ If your mind can conceive it and your heart can believe it, have faith that you can achieve it. Senior Manager Joined: 13 Aug 2012 Posts: 464 Concentration: Marketing, Finance GPA: 3.23 Followers: 26 Kudos [?]: 466 [3] , given: 11 Re: Press secretary: Our critics claim that the President's [#permalink] ### Show Tags 26 Jan 2013, 04:55 3 This post received KUDOS The Press Secretary goes on to defend the president's choice... That the cancelled projects are supported by nonpartisan auditor and that the choice is objective and not biased... A. Canceling highway projects was not the only way for the President to punish legislative districts controlled by opposition parties. Other ways to punish legislative districts is irrelevant to the argument... C. The number of projects cancelled was a significant proportion of all the highway projects that were to be undertaken by the government in the near future. This is attempting to introduce an extended story to the argument... which means it was not assumed by the Press Secretary... D. Nonpartisan auditors were President's friends. Friendship doesn't make the nonpartisan report biased... two friends can have totally different stand on politics but still be friends... to extend this choice means it is not the assumption... E. Reports by nonpartisan auditors are not generally regarded by the opposition parties as a source of objective assessment of government projects. what the opposition parties think of the auditor is irrelevant... to what the auditor really is.. did the auditor really gave an honest report or not... that is the line of argument by the Press Secretary... as support that the president's choice is not biased... Answer: B. The scheduled highway projects identified as wasteful in the report were not mostly projects in districts controlled by the President's party. If most of the projects identified as wasteful are district controlled by President then the Press Secretary need not to worry about defending the President's choice... _________________ Impossible is nothing to God. Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor Joined: 16 Oct 2010 Posts: 7370 Location: Pune, India Followers: 2285 Kudos [?]: 15092 [3] , given: 224 Re: Press secretary: Our critics claim that the President's [#permalink] ### Show Tags 15 Sep 2014, 00:04 3 This post received KUDOS Expert's post mneeti wrote: Hi Karishma, to me answer choice (B) looks more like an inference; since second line very clearly says 90% of cancellations are from the districts controlled by the opposition. This indirectly means that most of the cancellations were not from the president's districts i.e. answer choice (B), then why should we classify it as an assumption and not inference? On the contrary, (A) looks a better assumption to me if you apply negating rule. Please clarify my doubts. Thank you. Another way to figure out an assumption is inserting it in the argument with the premises and then checking whether the conclusion needs the assumption. Argument: There are districts controlled by the President and there are some controlled by the opposition parties. The President canceled some projects. 90% of those were located in the opposition party districts. So opposition has been crying foul. The secretary is defending the President. He says that all of these were identified as wasteful by non partisan auditors. Most of the wasteful projects identified were from opposition's districts. (That is why most of the canceled projects are from opposition's districts) Conclusion: the President's choice was clearly motivated by sound budgetary policy, not partisan politics. Mind you, you already have the conclusion of the argument and that is "President's choice was clearly motivated by sound budgetary policy, not partisan politics". But to prove that this is true, we need to know that most wasteful projects identified were from opposition's districts. What if the non partisan auditors identified 100 projects as wasteful out of which 90 were from President's districts but the President chose to cancel the rest of the 10 wasteful projects (which were from opposition's districts). In this case, the President is motivated by politics, right? So we need to know that the wasteful projects were predominantly from opposition's districts only. As for why (A) is not an assumption, please see my post right above yours. _________________ Karishma Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor My Blog Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for$199

Veritas Prep Reviews

Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 7370
Location: Pune, India
Followers: 2285

Kudos [?]: 15092 [2] , given: 224

Re: Press secretary: Our critics claim that the President's [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Jan 2013, 21:41
2
KUDOS
Expert's post
4
This post was
BOOKMARKED
thangvietnam wrote:
Thank you veritas experts.
for many types of question such as assumption, evaluate, strengthen and weaken, prethinking an assumption is important step. do you suggest any tips, or articles for improving prethinking. your prethinking in this question is great.

Look at things from a critical viewpoint. Read articles related to critic's views, letters to the editor, political dialogues - anything and everything that will help you understand the various different view points. Try to find out what can strengthen/weaken others' arguments. Imagine that you are debating with someone - you need to think of counter points. It comes with practice.
But mind you, don't waste too much time trying to pre-think. If nothing comes to mind, just move on to the options. The options will give you a clue.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
My Blog

Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for $199 Veritas Prep Reviews Senior Manager Joined: 17 Dec 2012 Posts: 460 Location: India Followers: 27 Kudos [?]: 426 [2] , given: 14 Re: Press secretary: Our critics claim that the President's [#permalink] ### Show Tags 29 Jan 2013, 05:43 2 This post received KUDOS 1 This post was BOOKMARKED pb_india wrote: Press secretary: Our critics claim that the President's recent highway project cancellations demonstrate a vindictive desire to punish legislative districts controlled by opposition parties. They offer as evidence the fact that 90% of the projects cancelled were in such districts. But all of the cancelled projects had been identified as wasteful in a report written by respected nonpartisan auditors. So the President's choice was clearly motivated by sound budgetary policy, not partisan politics. Which of the following is an assumption on which the press secretary's argument depends? A. Canceling highway projects was not the only way for the President to punish legislative districts controlled by opposition parties. B. The scheduled highway projects identified as wasteful in the report were not mostly projects in districts controlled by the President's party. C. The number of projects cancelled was a significant proportion of all the highway projects that were to be undertaken by the government in the near future. D. Nonpartisan auditors were President's friends. E. Reports by nonpartisan auditors are not generally regarded by the opposition parties as a source of objective assessment of government projects. Premise: All of the projects cancelled by the president had been identified as wasteful in a report written by respected nonpartisan auditors. Conclusion:the President's choice was clearly motivated by sound budgetary policy, not partisan politics. We need to look for an assumption that makes the conclusion definitely follow from the premise. What the premise says is that the cancelled projects have been identified as wasteful. But from this, the conclusion does not definitely follow. This is because even though all the cancelled projects have been identified as wasteful it does not mean that all the wasteful projects have been cancelled. Choice B fills that gap as it says that most of the wasteful projects are not in districts controlled by the president's party. Because if it were, then 90% of the cancelled projects being in opposition controlled districts, the president would be considered partisan. _________________ Srinivasan Vaidyaraman Sravna http://www.sravnatestprep.com Classroom and Online Coaching Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor Joined: 16 Oct 2010 Posts: 7370 Location: Pune, India Followers: 2285 Kudos [?]: 15092 [2] , given: 224 Re: Press secretary: Our critics claim that the President's [#permalink] ### Show Tags 20 Apr 2014, 18:39 2 This post received KUDOS Expert's post freddiek wrote: VeritasPrepKarishma wrote: thangvietnam wrote: hard one. I can not prethink an assumption before going to the answer choices. experts, pls, come in . how to do this? Pre-thinking an assumption can really help you stay on track and identify the correct answer quickly. There may be multiple assumptions but pre-thinking is useful in most cases because you understand the argument well before jumping into the options. Argument: There are districts controlled and the President and there are some controlled by the opposition parties. The President canceled some projects. 90% of those were located in the opposition party districts. So opposition has been crying foul. The secretary is defending the President. He says that all of these were identified as wasteful by non partisan auditors. Conclusion: the President's choice was clearly motivated by sound budgetary policy, not partisan politics. Now we have to think an assumption for this conclusion. Think of a political argument in which you are taking part. You have to assume that whatever the other person says is the truth. You have to put forward a counter point keeping that in mind. So the other person says, 'all of these were identified as wasteful by non partisan auditors.' The question that should come to your mind is: which other projects did the non partisan auditors identify as wasteful? Say, they identified 20 wasteful projects. 12 from the President's districts and 8 from the opposition's. What if the President chose all the projects to be canceled from the 8 wasteful projects of the opposition's districts? Everything said in the argument stays true but the conclusion becomes invalid. The President would have been motivated by partisan politics in that case. The assumption you are looking for: Not many of the projects identified as wasteful were from the President's districts. Hence (B) is your assumption. I'm still confused though. If the assumption was "many of the projects identified as wasteful were from the President's districts" instead of "NOT many of the projects identified as wasteful were from the President's districts", that would have been more explicit IMO. The projects that were deemed wasteful turning out to be from the president's district would've definitely proved the point that the president didn't have any political motivation behind the cancellation. However the OA (b) is stating that "not many were from the the president's district", which implies many projects that were cancelled was indeed from districts other than from the president's. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but somehow this assumption seems a bit weak to support the Scretary's claim. What shows political vengeance on the part of the President? Cancellation of projects of opposition districts. The President claims that they were wasteful so there is no politics involved. The conclusion of the argument is "President is motivated by policy, not politics." What do we NEED to be true if we are to say that the President is motivated by policy only? Since most of the cancellations were from opposition districts, it would make sense only if most wasteful projects were from opposition districts only. We need this to be true (i.e. it is an assumption) to establish the conclusion that the President is not politically motivated. _________________ Karishma Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor My Blog Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for$199

Veritas Prep Reviews

Director
Joined: 05 Jan 2005
Posts: 558
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 22 [1] , given: 0

### Show Tags

17 May 2005, 02:43
1
KUDOS
straightforward (E). Negate and argument dies
Director
Joined: 01 Feb 2003
Posts: 847
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 108 [1] , given: 0

### Show Tags

22 May 2005, 17:45
1
KUDOS
christoph wrote:
IMO its B)...negate B) => "The scheduled highway projects identified as wasteful in the report were mostly projects in districts controlled by the President's party". so the author was not driven by sound budgetary policy, but by the fact that most of the wastefult projects are in his districts. so he is partisan.

...negate E) "Reports by nonpartisan auditors are generally regarded by the opposition parties as a source of objective assessment of government projects". when even the oppositon thinks that this report is objective, then it should be fine to conclude that the president is not partisan but just a politician who is concerned about the economy.

Agree with Christoph's reasoning.
Intern
Joined: 20 Apr 2014
Posts: 4
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 1 [1] , given: 0

Re: Press secretary: Our critics claim that the President's [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Apr 2014, 08:41
1
KUDOS
VeritasPrepKarishma wrote:
thangvietnam wrote:
hard one.
I can not prethink an assumption before going to the answer choices. experts, pls, come in . how to do this?

Pre-thinking an assumption can really help you stay on track and identify the correct answer quickly. There may be multiple assumptions but pre-thinking is useful in most cases because you understand the argument well before jumping into the options.

Argument:
There are districts controlled and the President and there are some controlled by the opposition parties. The President canceled some projects. 90% of those were located in the opposition party districts. So opposition has been crying foul. The secretary is defending the President. He says that all of these were identified as wasteful by non partisan auditors.
Conclusion: the President's choice was clearly motivated by sound budgetary policy, not partisan politics.

Now we have to think an assumption for this conclusion.

Think of a political argument in which you are taking part. You have to assume that whatever the other person says is the truth. You have to put forward a counter point keeping that in mind. So the other person says, 'all of these were identified as wasteful by non partisan auditors.'
The question that should come to your mind is: which other projects did the non partisan auditors identify as wasteful? Say, they identified 20 wasteful projects. 12 from the President's districts and 8 from the opposition's. What if the President chose all the projects to be canceled from the 8 wasteful projects of the opposition's districts? Everything said in the argument stays true but the conclusion becomes invalid. The President would have been motivated by partisan politics in that case.
The assumption you are looking for: Not many of the projects identified as wasteful were from the President's districts.

I'm still confused though.
If the assumption was "many of the projects identified as wasteful were from the President's districts" instead of "NOT many of the projects identified as wasteful were from the President's districts", that would have been more explicit IMO. The projects that were deemed wasteful turning out to be from the president's district would've definitely proved the point that the president didn't have any political motivation behind the cancellation.

However the OA (b) is stating that "not many were from the the president's district", which implies many projects that were cancelled was indeed from districts other than from the president's. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but somehow this assumption seems a bit weak to support the Scretary's claim.
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 7370
Location: Pune, India
Followers: 2285

Kudos [?]: 15092 [1] , given: 224

Re: Press secretary: Our critics claim that the President's [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Oct 2014, 20:51
1
KUDOS
Expert's post
Rudranket wrote:

I have just one question. Its clearly mentioned in argument that 90% of projects were from Opposition's controlled districts. So clearly 10% remaining is in President's party controlled district. This so straightforward and say obvious thing which has no alternative. Answer suggest the same just by re-framing words. Why it should an assumption if argument does not have any alternative?
In any argument we have many obvious assumptions without any alternative. What shall we do in such cases?

The argument only tells you that 90% of the canceled projects are from opposition's districts. It does not tell you that90% of projects identified as wasteful are from opposition's districts. That is given by option (B).

These are two different things. Non biased analysts identify projects which are wasteful. Then the govt decides which of those to cancel.

Decision to cancel projects would have been fair only if most projects identified as wasteful were from opposition's districts since most projects canceled are from opposition's districts.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
My Blog

Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for \$199

Veritas Prep Reviews

Director
Joined: 18 Apr 2005
Posts: 547
Location: Canuckland
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 37 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

16 May 2005, 13:37
E.
Director
Joined: 18 Apr 2005
Posts: 547
Location: Canuckland
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 37 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

16 May 2005, 13:39
E.
Manager
Joined: 08 Mar 2005
Posts: 101
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

17 May 2005, 02:43
C

E would undermine the author's conclusion.
Manager
Joined: 27 Jul 2004
Posts: 85
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

17 May 2005, 03:21
E
Manager
Joined: 12 Jul 2003
Posts: 198
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 81 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

22 May 2005, 14:30
Can someone please explain the reasoning.I am totally lost on this one.

Thanks.

Best.
Senior Manager
Joined: 07 Nov 2004
Posts: 455
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 102 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

23 May 2005, 16:27
I initially picked E because I miss read "are not generally regarded ..." as "are generally regarded..."

Now I see B makes sense
Intern
Joined: 20 Mar 2005
Posts: 48
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

23 May 2005, 19:42
B makes complete sense
_________________

krish

23 May 2005, 19:42

Go to page    1   2   3    Next  [ 51 posts ]

Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
2 Criticism that the press panders to public sentiment neglects to consi 2 16 Mar 2017, 05:31
9 Commerce Secretary: Over the past year, our nation’s economy grew at a 7 12 Mar 2017, 06:17
36 Press Secretary: Our critics claim that the President s 22 23 Apr 2017, 07:11
1 Criticism that the press panders to public sentiment 2 04 Feb 2017, 16:59
1 Press Secretary: Our critics claim that the President s 3 12 Nov 2016, 13:40
Display posts from previous: Sort by