Last visit was: 19 Nov 2025, 00:23 It is currently 19 Nov 2025, 00:23
Home
GMAT
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
Rewards
Chat
My Profile
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.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
Back to Forum
Create Topic
   1   2   3   
805+ Level|   Assumption|      
avatar
Rudranket
avatar
Joined: 13 Jul 2014
Last visit: 04 Jan 2021
Posts: 10
Own Kudos:
8
 [2]
Given Kudos: 42
Status:Engineering consultant
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V32
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V32
Posts: 10
Kudos: 8
 [2]
Press Secretary: Our critics claim that the Presidents recent highway 13 Oct 2014, 08:55
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
VeritasPrepKarishma
thangvietnam
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.
Show more

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?
User avatar
KarishmaB
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 16,267
Own Kudos:
76,984
 [2]
Given Kudos: 482
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,267
Kudos: 76,984
 [2]
Press Secretary: Our critics claim that the Presidents recent highway 13 Oct 2014, 20:51
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Rudranket


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?
Show more

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.
User avatar
hwgmat2015
User avatar
Joined: 12 Mar 2015
Last visit: 24 Jul 2020
Posts: 59
Own Kudos:
51
 [3]
Given Kudos: 92
Concentration: Leadership, Finance
GPA: 3.9
WE:Information Technology (Computer Software)
Posts: 59
Kudos: 51
 [3]
Press Secretary: Our critics claim that the Presidents recent highway 02 Mar 2016, 07:54
3
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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 :)
User avatar
sairam595
User avatar
Joined: 15 Aug 2014
Last visit: 23 Dec 2016
Posts: 219
Own Kudos:
658
 [1]
Given Kudos: 470
Status:Always try to face your worst fear because nothing GOOD comes easy. You must be UNCOMFORTABLE to get to your COMFORT ZONE
Concentration: Marketing, Technology
GMAT 1: 570 Q44 V25
GMAT 2: 600 Q48 V25
WE:Information Technology (Consulting)
Products:
My Reviews
GMAT 2: 600 Q48 V25
Posts: 219
Kudos: 658
 [1]
Press Secretary: Our critics claim that the Presidents recent highway 04 May 2016, 23:08
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Marcab
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.
Show more

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.
User avatar
LogicGuru1
User avatar
Joined: 04 Jun 2016
Last visit: 28 May 2024
Posts: 469
Own Kudos:
2,595
 [7]
Given Kudos: 36
GMAT 1: 750 Q49 V43
GMAT 1: 750 Q49 V43
Posts: 469
Kudos: 2,595
 [7]
Press Secretary: Our critics claim that the Presidents recent highway Updated on: 31 Aug 2016, 23:26
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.
5
Kudos
Add Kudos
2
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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.
User avatar
ameyaprabhu
User avatar
Joined: 28 Apr 2016
Last visit: 09 Aug 2017
Posts: 68
Own Kudos:
34
Given Kudos: 79
Posts: 68
Kudos: 34
Press Secretary: Our critics claim that the Presidents recent highway 20 Aug 2016, 08:44
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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
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.
Show more
User avatar
KarishmaB
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 16,267
Own Kudos:
76,984
 [1]
Given Kudos: 482
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,267
Kudos: 76,984
 [1]
Press Secretary: Our critics claim that the Presidents recent highway 21 Aug 2016, 23:03
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
ameyaprabhu
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
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.
Show more

Yes, read about it here:
https://www.gmatclub.com/forum/veritas-prep-resource-links-no-longer-available-399979.html#/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:
https://www.gmatclub.com/forum/veritas-prep-resource-links-no-longer-available-399979.html#/2013/01 ... negatives/
User avatar
SVaidyaraman
User avatar
Joined: 17 Dec 2012
Last visit: 11 Jul 2025
Posts: 576
Own Kudos:
1,795
Given Kudos: 20
Location: India
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 576
Kudos: 1,795
Press Secretary: Our critics claim that the Presidents recent highway 02 Jun 2017, 03:17
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Marcab
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.
Show more
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.
User avatar
viv007
User avatar
Joined: 26 Sep 2017
Last visit: 03 Dec 2018
Posts: 82
Own Kudos:
35
Given Kudos: 84
Posts: 82
Kudos: 35
Press Secretary: Our critics claim that the Presidents recent highway 01 Dec 2017, 12:09
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
what is the press.secre. argument in these question i am confused with it.
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 7,445
Own Kudos:
69,781
 [1]
Given Kudos: 2,060
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,445
Kudos: 69,781
 [1]
Press Secretary: Our critics claim that the Presidents recent highway 17 Dec 2017, 22:51
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
viv007
what is the press.secre. argument in these question i am confused with it.
Show more
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!
User avatar
rashedBhai
User avatar
Joined: 05 Oct 2017
Last visit: 04 Feb 2019
Posts: 29
Own Kudos:
80
Given Kudos: 339
Location: Bangladesh
Concentration: Accounting, Social Entrepreneurship
Schools: Iowa State '21 Haas '21 Kelley '21 Marshall '21 Simon '21
Schools: Iowa State '21 Haas '21 Kelley '21 Marshall '21 Simon '21
Posts: 29
Kudos: 80
Press Secretary: Our critics claim that the Presidents recent highway 03 Nov 2018, 05:17
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
GMATNinja
viv007
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!
Show more

I understand the above resonign. But If I negate (E), it seems like the argument is destroyed. Help me please. GMATNinja VeritasKarishma

Posted from my mobile device
User avatar
KarishmaB
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 16,267
Own Kudos:
76,984
Given Kudos: 482
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,267
Kudos: 76,984
Press Secretary: Our critics claim that the Presidents recent highway 03 Nov 2018, 06:15
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
pb_india


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

Negated (E): Reports by nonpartisan auditors are generally regarded by the opposition parties as a source of objective assessments of government projects.

Premises:

- The President canceled some projects.
- 90% of those were located in the opposition party districts.
- 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.

Negated (E) says that the opposition believes in nonpartisan auditors. So they agree that the projects cancelled would have been wasteful. The conclusion is that the President's choice was motivated by sound budgetary policy. This gels well with the conclusion. The premise based on which the secretary is defending the President is something that the opposition believes in too. So it does not break our conclusion.
User avatar
mSKR
User avatar
Joined: 14 Aug 2019
Last visit: 10 Mar 2024
Posts: 1,290
Own Kudos:
938
Given Kudos: 381
Location: Hong Kong
Concentration: Strategy, Marketing
Schools: IE (A) IIML-IPMX '22 (A) HKUST '22
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V29
GPA: 3.81
Schools: IE (A) IIML-IPMX '22 (A) HKUST '22
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V29
Posts: 1,290
Kudos: 938
Press Secretary: Our critics claim that the Presidents recent highway 02 Mar 2021, 16:33
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Quote:

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?

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

(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.
Show more


Conclusion: So the President’s choice was clearly motivated by sound budgetary policy, not partisan politics.
When I negate B , D and E. All seems to strengthen the conclusion after conclusion.

Question1:
Negate of D: The highway projects canceled in districts controlled by the President’s party were generally more expensive than the projects canceled in districts controlled by opposition parties.

So if projects in districts controlled by president party’s were generally more expensive and these projects were cancelled .In other words, Because If these projects were expensive then it makes sense to cancel these projects, it means they were motivated by budgetary policy.

But it has still some gaps,
We are not sure what about projects that were of same value. What If these projects were not scrapped then it maybe possible that the motivation is based on partisan politics instead of budgetary policy. We are not sure . It doesn’t destoy the conclusion completely. So D can not be necessary condition, hence D can not be an assumption?

Quetion2: How negate of B makes the conclusion weak?
Negate of B says:
The scheduled highway projects identified as wasteful in the report were mostly projects in districts controlled by the President’s party.
Most wasteful projects are from districts controlled by president party so it means that the decision was taken DEFINITELY based on budgetary policy. Hence it doesn’t break the conclusion AT ALL, Is not it? Then why B is answer?

Question3:
Negate of E, as you mentioned in above post, strengthen the conclusion..
Reports by nonpartisan auditors are generally regarded by the opposition parties as a source of objective assessments of government projects.

Negate of both B and E strengthens the conclusion, but at least D has some gap for weakening the conclusion( doubtful as no information is given), So I choose D
Please correct me. VeritasKarishma GMATNinja DmitryFarber
User avatar
KarishmaB
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 16,267
Own Kudos:
76,984
 [2]
Given Kudos: 482
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,267
Kudos: 76,984
 [2]
Press Secretary: Our critics claim that the Presidents recent highway 03 Mar 2021, 01:38
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
mSKR
Quote:

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?

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

(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.


Conclusion: So the President’s choice was clearly motivated by sound budgetary policy, not partisan politics.
When I negate B , D and E. All seems to strengthen the conclusion after conclusion.

Question1:
Negate of D: The highway projects canceled in districts controlled by the President’s party were generally more expensive than the projects canceled in districts controlled by opposition parties.

So if projects in districts controlled by president party’s were generally more expensive and these projects were cancelled .In other words, Because If these projects were expensive then it makes sense to cancel these projects, it means they were motivated by budgetary policy.

But it has still some gaps,
We are not sure what about projects that were of same value. What If these projects were not scrapped then it maybe possible that the motivation is based on partisan politics instead of budgetary policy. We are not sure . It doesn’t destoy the conclusion completely. So D can not be necessary condition, hence D can not be an assumption?

Quetion2: How negate of B makes the conclusion weak?
Negate of B says:
The scheduled highway projects identified as wasteful in the report were mostly projects in districts controlled by the President’s party.
Most wasteful projects are from districts controlled by president party so it means that the decision was taken DEFINITELY based on budgetary policy. Hence it doesn’t break the conclusion AT ALL, Is not it? Then why B is answer?

Question3:
Negate of E, as you mentioned in above post, strengthen the conclusion..
Reports by nonpartisan auditors are generally regarded by the opposition parties as a source of objective assessments of government projects.

Negate of both B and E strengthens the conclusion, but at least D has some gap for weakening the conclusion( doubtful as no information is given), So I choose D
Please correct me. VeritasKarishma GMATNinja DmitryFarber
Show more

Option (B) says that most projects identified as wasteful belonged to the President's districts (say of 100 identified as wasteful, 70 were in President's districts and 30 were from opposition).
The argument tells us that 90% of the projects cancelled belonged to opposition districts.
This means that if 10 projects were cancelled, 9 were from opposition while only 1 was from President's districts.

So even though the report identified many wasteful projects from President's districts, he did not cancel those and chose those identified as wasteful from opposition's districts.
This is certainly vindictive politics.
avatar
Vishvendrasr
avatar
Joined: 29 Jun 2019
Last visit: 06 Nov 2021
Posts: 3
Given Kudos: 5
Posts: 3
Kudos: 0
Press Secretary: Our critics claim that the Presidents recent highway 13 Aug 2021, 11:13
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
i believe in assumption question the answer should support the argument and the negation should break down the argument i dont understand how B is doing that because by negating it says that the wasteful projects we mostly in districts controlled by the president so this does not break down the argument

experts please give your views on this.
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 7,445
Own Kudos:
69,781
 [2]
Given Kudos: 2,060
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,445
Kudos: 69,781
 [2]
Press Secretary: Our critics claim that the Presidents recent highway 27 Aug 2021, 13:59
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Vishvendrasr
i believe in assumption question the answer should support the argument and the negation should break down the argument i dont understand how B is doing that because by negating it says that the wasteful projects we mostly in districts controlled by the president so this does not break down the argument

experts please give your views on this.
Show more
Let's start by identifying the conclusion: "the President’s choice was clearly motivated by sound budgetary policy, not partisan politics."

Critics of the President, on the other hand, claim these cancellations demonstrate a "vindictive desire to punish legislative districts controlled by opposition parties," because "90 percent of the projects canceled were in such districts." According to the author, however, "all the canceled projects had been identified as wasteful in a report." Therefore, according to the author, the projects were not canceled because of partisan politics, but because they were wasteful.

Let's now consider (B):

Quote:
(B) The scheduled highway projects identified as wasteful in the report were not mostly projects in districts controlled by the President’s party.
Show more
What if this were not true? What if the projects identified as wasteful were mostly in districts controlled by the President's party? Well, that would suggest that the President's decisions were motivated by partisan politics. Because if the projects identified as wasteful were mostly in the President's districts, then a fair President should have canceled many of these projects.

However, 90 percent of the canceled projects were from the opposition party's districts, so the President must have selectively canceled these projects (i.e. selectively canceled projects from opposition districts). At the same time, she must have chosen not to cancel many of her own district's projects. So the President would have been unfairly targeting projects in opposition districts for cancellation. And if this were true, the argument would fall apart, because this behavior would definitely constitute partisan politics.

So (B) is our answer.

I hope that helps!
User avatar
RenB
User avatar
Joined: 13 Jul 2022
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 391
Own Kudos:
1,361
Given Kudos: 303
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Nonprofit
Schools: Stanford '26 Wharton  '26 (D) Kellogg '26 (II) Booth '26 (D) Yale '26 (S) CBS '26 (II) Darden '26 (S) HBS '26 (D) Ross '26 (II) LBS '26 (D) Tuck '26 (II)
GMAT Focus 1: 715 Q90 V84 DI82
GPA: 3.74
WE:Corporate Finance (Consulting)
Schools: Stanford '26 Wharton  '26 (D) Kellogg '26 (II) Booth '26 (D) Yale '26 (S) CBS '26 (II) Darden '26 (S) HBS '26 (D) Ross '26 (II) LBS '26 (D) Tuck '26 (II)
GMAT Focus 1: 715 Q90 V84 DI82
Posts: 391
Kudos: 1,361
Press Secretary: Our critics claim that the Presidents recent highway 22 Jul 2023, 06:08
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
KarishmaB
thangvietnam
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.
Show more

Hi!
What if these 8 wasteful projects cancelled (from the oppositions districts) are each more expensive than the wasteful projects in the President's district? Or simply, if one were to arrange the wasteful projects by the order value, the value of the projects in the oppositions districts was higher? Then it may be that the president would be thinking from an objective point of view when s/he chooses the wasteful projects in the opp's districts.
The skewness may just be a coincidence then.
Let me know what you think.
TIA!
User avatar
KarishmaB
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 16,267
Own Kudos:
76,984
 [1]
Given Kudos: 482
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,267
Kudos: 76,984
 [1]
Press Secretary: Our critics claim that the Presidents recent highway 30 Jul 2023, 06:58
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
RenB
KarishmaB
thangvietnam
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.

Hi!
What if these 8 wasteful projects cancelled (from the oppositions districts) are each more expensive than the wasteful projects in the President's district? Or simply, if one were to arrange the wasteful projects by the order value, the value of the projects in the oppositions districts was higher? Then it may be that the president would be thinking from an objective point of view when s/he chooses the wasteful projects in the opp's districts.
The skewness may just be a coincidence then.
Let me know what you think.
TIA!
Show more


Since the argument does not give us any such data, we cannot assume that this is what must have happened. Until and unless given otherwise, all projects identified as wasteful by non partisan auditors need to be considered equivalent except for the traits identified as different i.e. some belonged to the opposition's districts and some belonged to the President's districts.
User avatar
Raman109
User avatar
Joined: 17 Aug 2009
Last visit: 28 Jul 2025
Posts: 805
Own Kudos:
170
Given Kudos: 33
Posts: 805
Kudos: 170
Press Secretary: Our critics claim that the Presidents recent highway 11 Nov 2023, 08:22
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
How do we solve such a complex question? Better to put yourself in their shoes. In this case, the "press secretary"(PS). He or she is trying to defend the President. The moment the PS defends the President that his/her intentions are not malignant or biased. Before he/she concludes that, he/she has to manage the objection. What can be an objection from the opposition? One clear objection is if, per the unbiased report, there are 1000 wasteful projects in the President's districts, and in opposition districts, there were nine projects. The President cancels all 9 in opposition (90% of the canceled in opposition districts) and 1 (10% in rest) out of 1000 in his/her districts. If that's the case, that'll clearly show that the President is highly biased. So, as PS, we have to shield or safeguard the argument against this solid objection. We must assume this is not the case if we conclude that "the President’s choice was motivated by sound budgetary policy, not partisan politics."

Only extensive reading and more practice can help. Also, if we can eliminate the wrong ones.

Option Elimination -

(A) Canceling highway projects was not the only way for the President to punish legislative districts controlled by opposition parties. - We are concerned about the President's motivations and not if this was the only way to punish them. The conclusion is that there is no way to be any punishment in the first place. Out of scope.

(B) The scheduled highway projects identified as wasteful in the report were not mostly projects in districts controlled by the President’s party. Ok. The negation "the wasteful projects were mostly in President's party's districts" shatters the conclusion and is golden for the opposition party to attack back at the President.

(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. - Whether they were significant or not doesn't matter. The question here is on the "motivation of the President" Out of scope.

(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. - comparison amongst the canceled projects is immaterial. The opposition argument is that 90% of the canceled were in their districts, and not less expensive were canceled in our districts. Out of scope.

(E) Reports by nonpartisan auditors are not generally regarded by the opposition parties as a source of objective assessments of government projects. - Negation of this strengthens the conclusion. At best, it can be a weakener.
User avatar
laragarg
User avatar
Joined: 13 Aug 2022
Last visit: 12 Nov 2025
Posts: 7
Own Kudos:
8
Given Kudos: 34
GMAT Focus 1: 725 Q86 V86 DI86
GMAT Focus 1: 725 Q86 V86 DI86
Posts: 7
Kudos: 8
Press Secretary: Our critics claim that the Presidents recent highway 15 Aug 2024, 01:37
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Can someone please help me explain why option D is incorrect here? KarishmaB souvik101990

If the districts controlled by party president(A) were not generally more expensive than the projects canceled in districts controlled by opposition parties(B), it would mean that budget required for A was less than or equal than required for B, that is B is greater than A.
Then wouldn't it follow that because the opposition party's districts were more expensive, that's why they were cancelled, and hence it supports the conclusion that decision was taken keeping budget in mind.­
   1   2   3   
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7445 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
234 posts
miag
188 posts