It is currently 18 Jan 2018, 21:57

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

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

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

Expert Post
35 KUDOS received
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
User avatar
G
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 7866

Kudos [?]: 18473 [35], given: 237

Location: Pune, India
Re: Press Secretary: Our critics claim that the President’s recent highway [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 26 Jan 2013, 19:25
35
This post received
KUDOS
Expert's post
6
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.

Hence (B) is your assumption.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
My Blog

Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for $199

Veritas Prep Reviews

Kudos [?]: 18473 [35], given: 237

VP
VP
avatar
S
Joined: 08 Jun 2010
Posts: 1380

Kudos [?]: 176 [0], given: 916

Re: Press Secretary: Our critics claim that the President’s recent highway [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 26 Jan 2013, 20:58
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.
_________________

visit my facebook to help me.
on facebook, my name is: thang thang thang

Kudos [?]: 176 [0], given: 916

VP
VP
avatar
S
Joined: 08 Jun 2010
Posts: 1380

Kudos [?]: 176 [0], given: 916

Re: Press Secretary: Our critics claim that the President’s recent highway [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 26 Jan 2013, 22:12
the study of cr is practice of prethinking. redoing old questions often prevents us from prethinking because we remember the argument. this is dangerous

how to prethink assumption
any tips for prethinking
pls explain, thank you
_________________

visit my facebook to help me.
on facebook, my name is: thang thang thang

Kudos [?]: 176 [0], given: 916

Expert Post
2 KUDOS received
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
User avatar
G
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 7866

Kudos [?]: 18473 [2], given: 237

Location: Pune, India
Re: Press Secretary: Our critics claim that the President’s recent highway [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 28 Jan 2013, 20:41
2
This post received
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

Kudos [?]: 18473 [2], given: 237

Expert Post
2 KUDOS received
Director
Director
User avatar
B
Joined: 17 Dec 2012
Posts: 624

Kudos [?]: 557 [2], given: 16

Location: India
Re: Press Secretary: Our critics claim that the President’s recent highway [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 29 Jan 2013, 04:43
2
This post received
KUDOS
Expert's post
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

Premium Material
Standardized Approaches

Kudos [?]: 557 [2], given: 16

VP
VP
avatar
S
Joined: 08 Jun 2010
Posts: 1380

Kudos [?]: 176 [0], given: 916

Re: Press Secretary: Our critics claim that the President’s recent highway [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 Feb 2013, 02:41
one thing that makes this questin hard is that the oa B is worded in a way which makes B different from the assumption we prethink.

so
hard to prethink
oa is much different from what we prethink

there are 2 points which make the question hard. and we have to admit that this questin is still basic.
_________________

visit my facebook to help me.
on facebook, my name is: thang thang thang

Kudos [?]: 176 [0], given: 916

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 20 Jun 2013
Posts: 2

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 2

Re: Press Secretary: Our critics claim that the President’s recent highway [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Jul 2013, 00:19
I am not able to understand how B is correct

B.The scheduled highway projects identified as wasteful in the report were not mostly projects in districts controlled by the President's party.
This means, the projects that got cancelled are from districts which are not ruled by president's party. If this is assumption, then it could be because of partisian politics.
Can anyone explain what I am missing here?

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 2

Expert Post
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
User avatar
G
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 7866

Kudos [?]: 18473 [0], given: 237

Location: Pune, India
Re: Press Secretary: Our critics claim that the President’s recent highway [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Jul 2013, 02:01
Ravi9535 wrote:
I am not able to understand how B is correct

B.The scheduled highway projects identified as wasteful in the report were not mostly projects in districts controlled by the President's party.
This means, the projects that got cancelled are from districts which are not ruled by president's party. If this is assumption, then it could be because of partisian politics.
Can anyone explain what I am missing here?



No. The statement in bold is given to you in the argument. You are given that the projects that got cancelled were mainly from oppositions' disticts. What we are assuming is that the projects identified by the report as wasteful were not mainly from the President's districts.
Out of the 10 projects cancelled, 9 are from oppositions' districts. All these 10 projects were identified as wasteful by non partisan auditors. We are assuming that non partisan auditors did not identify 20 other wasteful projects - all of which belonged to the President's party but were not cancelled. We need to assume this if we are to say that the President is motivated by sound budgetary policies.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
My Blog

Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for $199

Veritas Prep Reviews

Kudos [?]: 18473 [0], given: 237

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 26 Sep 2013
Posts: 217

Kudos [?]: 190 [0], given: 40

Concentration: Finance, Economics
GMAT 1: 670 Q39 V41
GMAT 2: 730 Q49 V41
Re: Press Secretary: Our critics claim that the President’s recent highway [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 11 Oct 2013, 09:16
I chose B), doesn't B basically restate what the excerpt is stating?

Kudos [?]: 190 [0], given: 40

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 20 Sep 2013
Posts: 25

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 24

Location: India
Schools: IIM-L '15 (A)
GMAT 1: 710 Q50 V37
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Re: Press Secretary: Our critics claim that the President’s recent highway [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 11 Oct 2013, 21:58
AccipiterQ wrote:
I chose B), doesn't B basically restate what the excerpt is stating?

No it doesn't. The argument says that all projects those were cancelled had been identified as wasteful. There is a gap in the argument. What about the projects those were not cancelled, even though, they were wasteful. And adding to it, if all of them were in districts controlled by President parties, this would have weaken the argument. Choice "B" fills this gap by explaining that projects identified as wasteful were not mostly from President's party.

Does it make sense?

Consider Kodus, if you find explanation useful. Thanks!

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 24

1 KUDOS received
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 20 Apr 2014
Posts: 4

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

Re: Press Secretary: Our critics claim that the President’s recent highway [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 20 Apr 2014, 07:41
1
This post received
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.

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.

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

Expert Post
2 KUDOS received
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
User avatar
G
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 7866

Kudos [?]: 18473 [2], given: 237

Location: Pune, India
Re: Press Secretary: Our critics claim that the President’s recent highway [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 20 Apr 2014, 17:39
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

Kudos [?]: 18473 [2], given: 237

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 30 May 2013
Posts: 186

Kudos [?]: 96 [0], given: 72

Location: India
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, General Management
GPA: 3.82
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Press Secretary: Our critics claim that the President’s recent highway [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Apr 2014, 09:18
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.



Conclusion : President’s recent highway project cancellations demonstrate a vindictive desire to punish legislative districts controlled by opposition parties.
Evidence: the fact that 90 percent of the projects canceled were in such districts
Counter Evidence : all of the canceled projects had been identified as wasteful in a report written by respected nonpartisan auditors.

Assumption:
1) Wasteful means they are not sound budgetory projects.
2) Cancelled the projects on sound budgetary policy ground, but cancelled more Opposition parties district project than his own distircts.

So
A. Canceling highway projects was not the only way for the President to punish legislative districts controlled by opposition parties. - Irrelevant
B. The scheduled highway projects identified as wasteful in the report were not mostly projects in districts controlled by the President’s party. - Correct. Negating maks the conclusion question
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. - Irrelevant
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. - Expensive is not a matter of consideration here
E. Reports by nonpartisan auditors are not generally regarded by the opposition parties as a source of objective assessments of government projects. - irrelevant

I made wrong choice D)

-Press kudos if this helped

Kudos [?]: 96 [0], given: 72

Current Student
avatar
Joined: 24 Nov 2013
Posts: 22

Kudos [?]: 13 [0], given: 1

Location: United States
GMAT 1: 720 Q46 V42
GPA: 3.7
WE: Corporate Finance (Journalism and Publishing)
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Press Secretary: Our critics claim that the President’s recent highway [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 02 Aug 2014, 13:39
This one still makes no sense to me.

All we know about the auditors report is that 'ALL Canceled projects had been identified as wasteful'. We have no other insight into the scope of the report, other than that they have analyzed the canceled projects.

We also know that '90 Percent of Canceled Projects were in such Districts' - Partisan opposition districts.

Given these two pieces of information, the argument itself tells us pretty clearly the 'wasteful projects' were NOT mostly in districts controlled by the presidents party - 90% of them were in the opposing party's districts. I fail to see how restating this is necessary for the argument, as I don't consider the point to be a weak link in the argument.

I do, however, see the validity of the audit itself as being a potential weak link. I think this is just a poor question, not a hard one.

Kudos [?]: 13 [0], given: 1

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 28 Apr 2014
Posts: 271

Kudos [?]: 40 [0], given: 46

GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Press Secretary: Our critics claim that the President’s recent highway [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 02 Aug 2014, 20:37
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.


Is negating B , really proving that ?

Kudos [?]: 40 [0], given: 46

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 03 Jul 2012
Posts: 129

Kudos [?]: 114 [0], given: 16

GMAT 1: 710 Q50 V36
GPA: 3.9
WE: Programming (Computer Software)
Re: Press Secretary: Our critics claim that the President’s recent highway [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 Aug 2014, 07:30
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.


I think there's a mistake in the question. I have highlighted it in the bold part. That costed me the answer.

Kudos [?]: 114 [0], given: 16

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 10 Mar 2013
Posts: 263

Kudos [?]: 138 [0], given: 2405

GMAT 1: 620 Q44 V31
GMAT 2: 690 Q47 V37
GMAT 3: 610 Q47 V28
GMAT 4: 700 Q50 V34
GMAT 5: 700 Q49 V36
GMAT 6: 690 Q48 V35
GMAT 7: 750 Q49 V42
GMAT 8: 730 Q50 V39
Re: Press Secretary: Our critics claim that the President’s recent highway [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 Aug 2014, 20:18
VeritasPrepKarishma wrote:
freddiek wrote:
VeritasPrepKarishma wrote:

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.


Thanks! I finally understand this one after reading the explanation several times. Let me whether I can explain it well.

The premise states that 90% of the cancelled projects were from the opponents' districts and that ALL of the cancelled projects were wasteful. For the President to be fair, we would have to show that he did not choose to ignore wasteful projects from his party's districts. If a sizable proportion of wasteful projects were from his party's districts and they were not cancelled, he would be biased. B clearly defends against this possibility.

Kudos [?]: 138 [0], given: 2405

Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 11 Aug 2014
Posts: 28

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 10

GPA: 3
Reviews Badge CAT Tests
Re: Press Secretary: Our critics claim that the President’s recent highway [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 11 Sep 2014, 08:38
can anyone explain why A option is not correct.

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 10

Expert Post
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
User avatar
G
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 7866

Kudos [?]: 18473 [0], given: 237

Location: Pune, India
Re: Press Secretary: Our critics claim that the President’s recent highway [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 11 Sep 2014, 20:28
shasara wrote:
can anyone explain why A option is not correct.


Whether there are other ways to punish legislative districts controlled by opposition parties is immaterial. The argument doesn't say that the President must punish legislative districts controlled by opposition parties. To assume that 'the President did not cancel the highway projects to punish' means 'he must have other ways to punish' is not only unwarranted but also unethical! Option (A) does not need to be true for the argument to hold and hence it is not an assumption.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
My Blog

Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for $199

Veritas Prep Reviews

Kudos [?]: 18473 [0], given: 237

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 30 Oct 2011
Posts: 44

Kudos [?]: 22 [0], given: 13

GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Press Secretary: Our critics claim that the President’s recent highway [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 Sep 2014, 14:08
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.

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.

Kudos [?]: 22 [0], given: 13

Re: Press Secretary: Our critics claim that the President’s recent highway   [#permalink] 14 Sep 2014, 14:08

Go to page   Previous    1   2   3   4    Next  [ 72 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  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions| 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®.