Last visit was: 19 Nov 2025, 00:17 It is currently 19 Nov 2025, 00:17
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|      
User avatar
pb_india
User avatar
Joined: 10 Dec 2004
Last visit: 27 May 2005
Posts: 173
Own Kudos:
1,338
 [476]
Posts: 173
Kudos: 1,338
 [476]
Press Secretary: Our critics claim that the Presidents recent highway Updated on: 09 Nov 2023, 08:54
Originally posted by pb_india on 16 May 2005, 08:18.
Last edited by Bunuel on 09 Nov 2023, 08:54, edited 4 times in total.
41
Kudos
Add Kudos
435
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
00:00
Start Timer
Pause Timer
Resume Timer
Show Answer
Hide
Show
History
B
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!

Difficulty:

95% (hard)

Question Stats:

47% (02:19) correct 53% (02:44) wrong based on 5962 sessions

History

Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
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.

ID 01283
ShowHide Answer
Official Answer
B
Most Helpful Reply
User avatar
KarishmaB
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 16,267
Own Kudos:
76,984
 [143]
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
 [143]
Press Secretary: Our critics claim that the Presidents recent highway 26 Jan 2013, 20:25
111
Kudos
Add Kudos
30
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
thangvietnam
hard one.
I can not prethink an assumption before going to the answer choices. experts, pls, come in . how to do this?
Show more

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.
avatar
HongHu
avatar
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Last visit: 25 Apr 2011
Posts: 966
Own Kudos:
796
 [76]
Posts: 966
Kudos: 796
 [76]
Press Secretary: Our critics claim that the Presidents recent highway 22 May 2005, 22:59
58
Kudos
Add Kudos
17
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Opposing argument: President carries partisan politics.
Fact: 90% project cancelled are by opposing party.
Counter argument: All the cancelled project have been identified as bad by a nonpartisan auditor.

What is the missing link here?

What if the auditor has identified many projects by the controlling party as well as by the opposing party as wasteful and the president only cancels the opposing party ones?

To make the press secretary's argument work one has to make the assumption that there aren't a lot of bad projects in the controling party district in the auditor's report.

Therefore (B) would be the correct answer.
General Discussion
User avatar
christoph
User avatar
Joined: 30 Sep 2004
Last visit: 23 Nov 2011
Posts: 684
Own Kudos:
1,569
 [13]
Location: Germany
Posts: 684
Kudos: 1,569
 [13]
Press Secretary: Our critics claim that the Presidents recent highway 22 May 2005, 14:52
10
Kudos
Add Kudos
3
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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.
User avatar
Zenverse
User avatar
Joined: 09 Sep 2012
Last visit: 24 Dec 2012
Posts: 31
Own Kudos:
95
 [9]
Given Kudos: 29
Status:Edge of Extinction
Posts: 31
Kudos: 95
 [9]
Press Secretary: Our critics claim that the Presidents recent highway 16 Dec 2012, 22:20
7
Kudos
Add Kudos
2
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
A. Canceling highway projects was not the only way for the President to punish legislative districts controlled by opposition parties. Logical error. Does not strengthen the argument. Just because canceling the projects was not the only option to be vindictive, does not mean that the action itself was not vindictive.
B. The scheduled highway projects identified as wasteful in the report were not mostly projects in districts controlled by the President’s party. Most cancelled projects were in opposition districts (existing premise), but most of the projects identified as wasteful were also in opposition districts (this choice). This combination strengthens the argument. Correct.
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. Out of scope. Incorrect.
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. Weakens the argument, rather than strengthen it. Incorrect.
E. Reports by nonpartisan auditors are not generally regarded by the opposition parties as a source of objective assessments of government projects. Weakens the argument, rather than strengthen it. Incorrect.

Thanks for sharing.
User avatar
SVaidyaraman
User avatar
Joined: 17 Dec 2012
Last visit: 11 Jul 2025
Posts: 576
Own Kudos:
1,795
 [2]
Given Kudos: 20
Location: India
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 576
Kudos: 1,795
 [2]
Press Secretary: Our critics claim that the Presidents recent highway 17 Dec 2012, 02:33
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Premise of the argument: "all of the canceled projects had been identified as wasteful in a report written by respected nonpartisan auditors."

Conclusion of the argument: "So the President’s choice was clearly motivated by sound budgetary policy, not partisan politics."

In the assumption questions, the conclusion follows given the premise and the unstated assumption. In such questions, the premise is not complete. It needs something more which is the assumption for the conclusion to logically follow. In the above question the premise says that all the cancelled projects were wasteful. Choice B completes that by saying that all the wasteful projects were indeed cancelled and were not based on partisan politics. Only then the conclusion that the decision was based on sound budgetary policy follows.
User avatar
carcass
User avatar
Board of Directors
Joined: 01 Sep 2010
Last visit: 17 Nov 2025
Posts: 4,754
Own Kudos:
37,013
 [3]
Given Kudos: 4,856
Posts: 4,754
Kudos: 37,013
 [3]
Press Secretary: Our critics claim that the Presidents recent highway 06 Jan 2013, 10:57
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
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


B is clearly the answer. The other options go in other directions respect the argument at stake ;)
User avatar
souvik101990
User avatar
Joined: 19 Mar 2012
Last visit: 11 Nov 2025
Posts: 4,321
Own Kudos:
53,090
 [16]
Given Kudos: 2,326
Location: United States (WA)
Concentration: Leadership, General Management
Schools: Ross '20 (M)
GMAT 1: 760 Q50 V42
GMAT 2: 740 Q49 V42 (Online)
GMAT 3: 760 Q50 V42 (Online)
GPA: 3.8
WE:Marketing (Non-Profit and Government)
Products:
My Reviews
Expert
Expert reply
Schools: Ross '20 (M)
GMAT 3: 760 Q50 V42 (Online)
Posts: 4,321
Kudos: 53,090
 [16]
Press Secretary: Our critics claim that the Presidents recent highway 06 Jan 2013, 11:15
15
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
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

Lets talk numbers!
Lets assume,
No of wasteful project districts=200
President's party districts=110
Opposition districts=90
Now lets say that the president cancelled 100 projects with 90 districts belonging to opposition and 10 of his own (so that it becomes 90%)
Now clearly the president is NOT fair isnt it?
That is exactly what B says!
User avatar
mbaiseasy
User avatar
Joined: 13 Aug 2012
Last visit: 29 Dec 2013
Posts: 322
Own Kudos:
2,049
 [4]
Given Kudos: 11
Concentration: Marketing, Finance
Schools: Full Time MBA (A$)
GPA: 3.23
Schools: Full Time MBA (A$)
Posts: 322
Kudos: 2,049
 [4]
Press Secretary: Our critics claim that the Presidents recent highway 26 Jan 2013, 04:55
4
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
The Press Secretary goes on to defend the president's choice... That the cancelled projects are supported by nonpartisan auditor and that the choice is objective and not biased...

A. Canceling highway projects was not the only way for the President to punish legislative districts controlled by opposition parties.
Other ways to punish legislative districts is irrelevant to the argument...

C. The number of projects cancelled was a significant proportion of all the highway projects that were to be undertaken by the government in the near future. This is attempting to introduce an extended story to the argument... which means it was not assumed by the Press Secretary...

D. Nonpartisan auditors were President's friends.
Friendship doesn't make the nonpartisan report biased... two friends can have totally different stand on politics but still be friends... to extend this choice means it is not the assumption...

E. Reports by nonpartisan auditors are not generally regarded by the opposition parties as a source of objective assessment of government projects.
what the opposition parties think of the auditor is irrelevant... to what the auditor really is.. did the auditor really gave an honest report or not... that is the line of argument by the Press Secretary... as support that the president's choice is not biased...


Answer:

B. The scheduled highway projects identified as wasteful in the report were not mostly projects in districts controlled by the President's party.
If most of the projects identified as wasteful are district controlled by President then the Press Secretary need not to worry about defending the President's choice...
User avatar
KarishmaB
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 16,267
Own Kudos:
76,984
 [11]
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
 [11]
Press Secretary: Our critics claim that the Presidents recent highway 28 Jan 2013, 21:41
5
Kudos
Add Kudos
6
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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.
Show more

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.
User avatar
SVaidyaraman
User avatar
Joined: 17 Dec 2012
Last visit: 11 Jul 2025
Posts: 576
Own Kudos:
1,795
 [6]
Given Kudos: 20
Location: India
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 576
Kudos: 1,795
 [6]
Press Secretary: Our critics claim that the Presidents recent highway 29 Jan 2013, 05:43
4
Kudos
Add Kudos
2
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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

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.
avatar
Ravi9535
avatar
Joined: 20 Jun 2013
Last visit: 02 Aug 2013
Posts: 1
Given Kudos: 2
Posts: 1
Kudos: 0
Press Secretary: Our critics claim that the Presidents recent highway 22 Jul 2013, 01:19
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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?
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 22 Jul 2013, 03:01
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Ravi9535
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?
Show more


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.
avatar
freddiek
avatar
Joined: 20 Apr 2014
Last visit: 30 Apr 2017
Posts: 4
Own Kudos:
2
 [2]
Posts: 4
Kudos: 2
 [2]
Press Secretary: Our critics claim that the Presidents recent highway 20 Apr 2014, 08:41
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
VeritasPrepKarishma
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

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.
User avatar
KarishmaB
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 16,267
Own Kudos:
76,984
 [3]
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
 [3]
Press Secretary: Our critics claim that the Presidents recent highway 20 Apr 2014, 18:39
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
freddiek
VeritasPrepKarishma
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.

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.
Show more


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.
User avatar
TooLong150
User avatar
Joined: 10 Mar 2013
Last visit: 07 Feb 2022
Posts: 135
Own Kudos:
536
 [2]
Given Kudos: 2,412
GMAT 1: 620 Q44 V31
GMAT 2: 610 Q47 V28
GMAT 3: 700 Q49 V36
GMAT 4: 690 Q48 V35
GMAT 5: 750 Q49 V42
GMAT 6: 730 Q50 V39
GPA: 3
Products:
My Reviews
GMAT 6: 730 Q50 V39
Posts: 135
Kudos: 536
 [2]
Press Secretary: Our critics claim that the Presidents recent highway 14 Aug 2014, 21:18
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
VeritasPrepKarishma
freddiek
VeritasPrepKarishma


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.
Show more

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.
avatar
shasara
avatar
Joined: 11 Aug 2014
Last visit: 09 May 2019
Posts: 28
Own Kudos:
6
Given Kudos: 13
GPA: 3
Products:
My Reviews
Posts: 28
Kudos: 6
Press Secretary: Our critics claim that the Presidents recent highway 11 Sep 2014, 09:38
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
can anyone explain why A option is not correct.
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 11 Sep 2014, 21:28
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
shasara
can anyone explain why A option is not correct.
Show more

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.
User avatar
mneeti
User avatar
Joined: 30 Oct 2011
Last visit: 15 Dec 2018
Posts: 24
Own Kudos:
73
Given Kudos: 13
Posts: 24
Kudos: 73
Press Secretary: Our critics claim that the Presidents recent highway 14 Sep 2014, 15:08
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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
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
User avatar
KarishmaB
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 16,267
Own Kudos:
76,984
 [4]
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
 [4]
Press Secretary: Our critics claim that the Presidents recent highway 15 Sep 2014, 00:04
3
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
mneeti
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.

Show more

Another way to figure out an assumption is inserting it in the argument with the premises and then checking whether the conclusion needs the assumption.

Argument:
There are districts controlled by the President and there are some controlled by the opposition parties.
The President canceled some projects.
90% of those were located in the opposition party districts. So opposition has been crying foul.
The secretary is defending the President. He says that all of these were identified as wasteful by non partisan auditors.
Most of the wasteful projects identified were from opposition's districts. (That is why most of the canceled projects are from opposition's districts)

Conclusion: the President's choice was clearly motivated by sound budgetary policy, not partisan politics.

Mind you, you already have the conclusion of the argument and that is "President's choice was clearly motivated by sound budgetary policy, not partisan politics". But to prove that this is true, we need to know that most wasteful projects identified were from opposition's districts. What if the non partisan auditors identified 100 projects as wasteful out of which 90 were from President's districts but the President chose to cancel the rest of the 10 wasteful projects (which were from opposition's districts). In this case, the President is motivated by politics, right? So we need to know that the wasteful projects were predominantly from opposition's districts only.

As for why (A) is not an assumption, please see my post right above yours.
 1   2   3   
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7445 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
234 posts
miag
188 posts