GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

It is currently 14 Aug 2018, 22:01

Close

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
Your Progress

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

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Press Secretary: Our critics claim that the President’s recent highway

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Status: Engineering consultant
Joined: 13 Jul 2014
Posts: 16
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V32
Re: Press Secretary: Our critics claim that the President’s recent highway  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 13 Oct 2014, 08:55
VeritasPrepKarishma wrote:
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.


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?
Manager
Manager
avatar
S
Joined: 12 Mar 2015
Posts: 99
Concentration: Leadership, Finance
GPA: 3.9
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Re: Press Secretary: Our critics claim that the President’s recent highway  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 02 Mar 2016, 07:54
3
Tricky question !! I spent a lot of time trying to figure out authors assumption till i realized that the question is not asking authors assumption.

We need to find - assumption on which the press secretary’s argument depends?
Note it is NOT asking authors assumption.

Press secretary Conclusion: Our critics claim that the President’s recent highway project cancellations demonstrate a vindictive desire to punish legislative districts controlled by opposition parties

So B.

No doubt we get confused as to why B when its already mentioned in the passage.

Hope this helps :)
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Status: Always try to face your worst fear because nothing GOOD comes easy. You must be UNCOMFORTABLE to get to your COMFORT ZONE
Joined: 15 Aug 2014
Posts: 322
Concentration: Marketing, Technology
GMAT 1: 570 Q44 V25
GMAT 2: 600 Q48 V25
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge
Re: Press Secretary: Our critics claim that the President’s recent highway  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 04 May 2016, 23:08
1
Marcab 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 percent of the projects canceled were in such districts. But all of the canceled 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 canceled was a significant proportion of all the highway projects that were to be undertaken by the government in the near future.
D. The highway projects canceled in districts controlled by the President’s party were not generally more expensive than the projects canceled in districts controlled by opposition parties.
E. Reports by nonpartisan auditors are not generally regarded by the opposition parties as a source of objective assessments of government projects.


Below explanation of Ron helps to someone who get confused to this question like me!

The point is that the 90% statistic would represent a possible bias, unless 90% of all the wasteful projects were in those districts. I.e., if the cancellation of those projects were at all out of proportion with their presence in those districts, then an accusation of bias would be justified.
If that's too confusing, then try negating (B).
If you negate that premise, you get "Most of the wasteful projects were in the president's districts". If that's true, then the fact that 90% of the cancelled projects were in opposition districts"”which didn't even contain most of the wasteful projects"”would very clearly demonstrate a political bias, thus destroying the argument.
_________________

"When you want to succeed as bad as you want to breathe, then you’ll be successful.” - Eric Thomas

I need to work on timing badly!!

Director
Director
User avatar
B
Joined: 04 Jun 2016
Posts: 603
GMAT 1: 750 Q49 V43
Re: Press Secretary: Our critics claim that the President’s recent highway  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post Updated on: 31 Aug 2016, 23:26
4
1
Answer is B
We have to find assumptions
Assumption is a premise that is not written explicitly.
If we add assumption to the argument our argument will become fool proof and devoid of criticism.

lets write the argument is simplest form first

Premise 1) Critics claims president is punishing opposition by cancelling project in their cities
Premise 2) Critics claims 90 % projects in opposition cities were cancelled
Premise 3) Independent auditor say projects were cancelled because they were wasteful

Conclusion ) President is saving money and not punishing opponents by cancelling MOST of the projects. <==== Now this is the line that the answer should defend or strengthen at any cost. If this line can be shown to be false then argument fails. You have to choose a answer that must protect, defend, save this line at any cost. THIS LINE IS THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH AND NO DOUBT SHOULD EVER FALL ON IT .. EVER !!!!!

Now think what will the opponent will you say to weaken the conclusion. He will probably say :- Yeah !! President .. !! are you saving money ? you save money by cancelling most of the projects in my city.. IF this is how you save money why don't you cancel most project in your city ?? huh.. lets be fair president.. I dare you to cancel most of project in your city.

bamm.. now the opposition has challenged the conclusion. now The president have to quickly save the conclusion otherwise the argument will wall apart


President saves the argument by saying:- "But I don't have most of the project in my city. ha ha .. how can i eat 40 bananas if i have only 1 banana. My city does not have most of the projects. So i cannot cancel most of the projects in my city"

Now the critic is speechless. He cannot attack the president anymore by saying that most of the projects that are being cancelled are in his city are to punish him.
If the number of projects was equal in critics city and presidents city and the president only cancelled critics project, then one can say president is clearly punishing the opponent. But this is not the case.

so this is what the option B does
B. The scheduled highway projects identified as wasteful in the report were not mostly projects in districts controlled by the President’s party.
in other words
The presidents city has either no or less projects.

NOW THE ARGUMENT IS SAFE AND THUS (B) IS THE ANSWER

THIS TECHNIQUE IS CALLED A DEFENDER ASSUMPTION. YOU CAN READ MORE ABOUT IT POWERSCORE CR BIBLE

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 percent of the projects canceled were in such districts. But all of the canceled 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 canceled was a significant proportion of all the highway projects that were to be undertaken by the government in the near future.
D. The highway projects canceled in districts controlled by the President’s party were not generally more expensive than the projects canceled in districts controlled by opposition parties.
E. Reports by nonpartisan auditors are not generally regarded by the opposition parties as a source of objective assessments of government projects.

_________________

Posting an answer without an explanation is "GOD COMPLEX". The world doesn't need any more gods. Please explain you answers properly.
FINAL GOODBYE :- 17th SEPTEMBER 2016. .. 16 March 2017 - I am back but for all purposes please consider me semi-retired.


Originally posted by LogicGuru1 on 12 Jun 2016, 01:10.
Last edited by LogicGuru1 on 31 Aug 2016, 23:26, edited 1 time in total.
Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 28 Apr 2016
Posts: 97
Re: Press Secretary: Our critics claim that the President’s recent highway  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 20 Aug 2016, 08:44
I have a slight doubt about the 'negation' technique.

In this technique, do we negate all the possible cues (that can be negated) in the statement , or do we negate only one major cue.

Eg.

Will the negation of B read as:
B. The scheduled highway projects identified as wasteful in the report were not mostly projects in districts controlled by the President's party.

or as:

B. The scheduled highway projects not identified as wasteful in the report were not mostly projects in districts controlled by the President's party.



and E will read as:

E. Reports by nonpartisan auditors are not generally regarded by the opposition parties as a source of objective assessment of government projects

or as:

E. Reports by nonpartisan auditors are not generally regarded by the opposition parties as not a source of objective assessment of government projects


I have been told this is a really powerful technique but I am really confused about how to deploy it.


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.
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
User avatar
P
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 8184
Location: Pune, India
Re: Press Secretary: Our critics claim that the President’s recent highway  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 Aug 2016, 23:03
ameyaprabhu wrote:
I have a slight doubt about the 'negation' technique.

In this technique, do we negate all the possible cues (that can be negated) in the statement , or do we negate only one major cue.

Eg.

Will the negation of B read as:
B. The scheduled highway projects identified as wasteful in the report were not mostly projects in districts controlled by the President's party.

or as:

B. The scheduled highway projects not identified as wasteful in the report were not mostly projects in districts controlled by the President's party.



and E will read as:

E. Reports by nonpartisan auditors are not generally regarded by the opposition parties as a source of objective assessment of government projects

or as:

E. Reports by nonpartisan auditors are not generally regarded by the opposition parties as not a source of objective assessment of government projects


I have been told this is a really powerful technique but I am really confused about how to deploy it.


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.


Yes, read about it here:
http://www.veritasprep.com/blog/2015/02 ... reasoning/

And you will negate only the main cue.

B - The scheduled highway projects identified as wasteful in the report were not mostly projects in districts controlled by the President's party.
Negated B - The scheduled highway projects identified as wasteful in the report were mostly projects in districts controlled by the President's party.

E. Reports by nonpartisan auditors are not generally regarded by the opposition parties as a source of objective assessment of government projects.
Negated E - Reports by nonpartisan auditors are generally regarded by the opposition parties as a source of objective assessment of government projects.


Here is a post on double negatives:
http://www.veritasprep.com/blog/2013/01 ... negatives/
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor

Save up to $1,000 on GMAT prep through 8/20! Learn more here >

GMAT self-study has never been more personalized or more fun. Try ORION Free!

Director
Director
User avatar
B
Joined: 17 Dec 2012
Posts: 637
Location: India
Re: Press Secretary: Our critics claim that the President’s recent highway  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 02 Jun 2017, 03:17
Marcab 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 percent of the projects canceled were in such districts. But all of the canceled 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 canceled was a significant proportion of all the highway projects that were to be undertaken by the government in the near future.
D. The highway projects canceled in districts controlled by the President’s party were not generally more expensive than the projects canceled in districts controlled by opposition parties.
E. Reports by nonpartisan auditors are not generally regarded by the opposition parties as a source of objective assessments of government projects.

The opposition's claim is that projects which were not wasteful were canceled.

The president is motivated by sound budgetary policy if only the wasteful projects as identified by the auditors, were canceled. Choice B is the needed assumption that would make that true. It says many of the wasteful projects were in districts controlled by opposition.

My view is, we really cannot say this as an assumption because it is a fact that automatically follows from the facts that 90% of the canceled projects were in opposition's districts and the fact of the auditor's report.
_________________

Srinivasan Vaidyaraman
Sravna Holistic Solutions
http://www.sravnatestprep.com

Holistic and Systematic Approach

Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 15 Aug 2015
Posts: 65
Location: India
Schools: LBS '18, ISB '19
GMAT 1: 610 Q48 V26
GPA: 3.21
Press Secretary: Our critics claim that the President’s recent highway  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 01 Dec 2017, 07:10
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 percent of the projects canceled were in such districts. But all of the canceled 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 canceled was a significant proportion of all the highway projects that were to be undertaken by the government in the near future.

(D) The highway projects canceled in districts controlled by the President’s party were not generally more expensive than the projects canceled in districts controlled by opposition parties.

(E) Reports by nonpartisan auditors are not generally regarded by the opposition parties as a source of objective assessments of government projects.


This is one of the Critical Reasoning Questions that indulge my senses.
You really need a clear mindset to solve it. And this question is the limit in which only common sense works
.The more you apply" NEGATION TECHNIQUES " or " DEFENDER ASSUMPTION" or " SUPPORTER ASSUMPTION
" techniques , the more time is wasted . And if you solve it in a max time frame situation , Then clearly
its not a win-win situation

Breaking the argument down in simple terms .
Press secretary is just saying that the oppositions are again becoming delusional.
Our President is cleary motivated to save money and not play dirty politics here, tHE PREMISE supporting
it is " WE HAVE A REPORT FROM A NON PARTISAN AUDITOR
Like most Gmat questions this single premise is enough to support the weak reasoning of Press Secretary
((There are so many reasoning errors in the link between premise and conclusion PRIMARY being a APPEAL
FALLACY ERROR (APPEAL TO AUTHORITY- according to which if a famous or an
important person states a thing then that is enough TO JUSTIFY THE CONCLUSION.
Here that important person is the NON PARTISAN AUDITOR. iF you find some ther flaws clearly 3 options
can be removed safely.

I was confused between A and B.
Coming to B . Why is B right - According to B The scheduled highway projects identified as wasteful in the report were not mostly projects in districts controlled by the President’s party.

Consider, if this was not the case , then all cancelled highways will be in the president's nominated area or areas under his control
Now , all these highways which fall in the area that is under President's jurisdiction are cancelled , Then why is opposition still
howling and why is press secretary even concerned to reply them?
All the destruction has happened in President's area .Why must Press Secretary respond to opposition now
for their cancelled projects. He must be a real fool if he does that
But, he is not .He responds to the claims of opposition. He makes an argument that we solve. He gives a conclusion that we can destroy

Hence, the answer.
If still you are confused with any other option , then look for a flaw in the argument and see that are you trying to link your
assumption to that flaw?
Manager
Manager
User avatar
B
Joined: 26 Sep 2017
Posts: 93
CAT Tests
Re: Press Secretary: Our critics claim that the President’s recent highway  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 01 Dec 2017, 12:09
what is the press.secre. argument in these question i am confused with it.
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
User avatar
P
Status: GMAT and GRE tutor
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 1896
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
Re: Press Secretary: Our critics claim that the President’s recent highway  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 17 Dec 2017, 22:51
viv007 wrote:
what is the press.secre. argument in these question i am confused with it.

To understand the press secretary's argument, start with the conclusion: "The President’s choice was clearly motivated by sound budgetary policy, not partisan politics."

Next, let's walk through the press secretary's reasoning:

  • First, the press secretary describes a claim made by CRITICS of the president's cancellations: "Our critics claim that the President’s recent highway project cancellations demonstrate a vindictive desire to punish legislative districts controlled by opposition parties." In other words, the President belongs to party A, and some legislative districts are controlled by parties B, C, and D, for example. According to the critics, the President was motivated by revenge (vengeful) and thus cancelled projects in districts controlled by parties B, C and D.
  • Next, the press secretary presents the evidence used by critics to support their claim that the president was being vengeful: "90 percent of the projects canceled were in {districts controlled by opposition parties}." So of all the projects cancelled by the president, 90 percent were in districts controlled by B, C, and D. Obviously this would be a little suspicious if the president belongs to party A. Did the president cancel those projects to take revenge on the rival parties?
  • The press secretary then states evidence that will be used AGAINST the critics' claim: "all of the canceled projects had been identified as wasteful in a report written by respected nonpartisan auditors." So the critics focused on the parties controlling the districts. The press secretary responds by saying, "Hey, it had nothing to do with the parties. ALL of those projects were identified as wasteful. The projects were cancelled because they were WASTEFUL, not because they were in districts controlled by rival parties." The press secretary does not dispute the FACTS cited by the critics. However, the press secretary does dispute the MOTIVATION.
  • The press secretary thus implies that the president would have cancelled those projects even if they were in districts controlled by A. According to the press secretary, the cancellations were based on waste, not party affiliation.

Hopefully that helps you tackle the answer choices! Remember, you are looking for an assumption on which THAT line of reasoning/conclusion depends. Use process of elimination to consider each choice.

Good luck, and welcome to GMAT Club!
_________________

GMAT Club Verbal Expert | GMAT/GRE tutor @ www.gmatninja.com (Now hiring!) | GMAT blog | Food blog | Notoriously bad at PMs

Beginners' guides to GMAT verbal
Reading Comprehension | Critical Reasoning | Sentence Correction

YouTube LIVE verbal webinars
Series 1: Fundamentals of SC & CR | Series 2: Developing a Winning GMAT Mindset

SC & CR Questions of the Day (QOTDs), featuring expert explanations
All QOTDs | Subscribe via email | RSS

Need an expert reply?
Hit the request verbal experts' reply button -- and please be specific about your question. Feel free to tag @GMATNinja and @GMATNinjaTwo in your post. Priority is always given to official GMAT questions.

Sentence Correction articles & resources
How to go from great (760) to incredible (780) on GMAT SC | That "-ing" Word Probably Isn't a Verb | That "-ed" Word Might Not Be a Verb, Either | No-BS Guide to GMAT Idioms | "Being" is not the enemy | WTF is "that" doing in my sentence?

Reading Comprehension, Critical Reasoning, and other articles & resources
All GMAT Ninja articles on GMAT Club | Using LSAT for GMAT CR & RC |7 reasons why your actual GMAT scores don't match your practice test scores | How to get 4 additional "fake" GMAT Prep tests for $29.99 | Time management on verbal

Re: Press Secretary: Our critics claim that the President’s recent highway &nbs [#permalink] 17 Dec 2017, 22:51

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 31 posts ] 

Display posts from previous: Sort by

Press Secretary: Our critics claim that the President’s recent highway

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  

Events & Promotions

PREV
NEXT


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.