Last visit was: 11 Dec 2024, 11:47 It is currently 11 Dec 2024, 11:47
Home
GMAT
Messages
Tests
Schools
Reviews
Social
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
User avatar
Bunuel
User avatar
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Last visit: 11 Dec 2024
Posts: 97,811
Own Kudos:
685,108
 [15]
Given Kudos: 88,240
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 97,811
Kudos: 685,108
 [15]
Contrary to the charges made by some of its opponents, the provisions 31 Aug 2018, 04:04
Kudos
Add Kudos
14
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
00:00
Start Timer
Pause Timer
Resume Timer
Show Answer
Hide
Show
History
E
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!

Difficulty:

25% (medium)

Question Stats:

77% (01:35) correct 23% (01:49) wrong based on 1133 sessions

History

Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Contrary to the charges made by some of its opponents, the provisions of the new deficit-reduction law for indiscriminate cuts in the federal budget are justified. Opponents should remember that the New Deal pulled this country out of great economic troubles even though some of its programs were later found to be unconstitutional.

The opponents could effectively defend their position against the author’s strategy by pointing out that


(A) the expertise of those opposing the law is outstanding

(B) the lack of justification for the new law does not imply that those who drew it up were either inept or immoral

(C) the practical application of the new law will not entail indiscriminate budget cuts

(D) economic troubles present at the time of the New Deal were equal in severity to those that have led to the present law

(E) the fact that certain flawed programs or laws have improved the economy does not prove that every such program can do so
ShowHide Answer
Official Answer
E
Most Helpful Reply
User avatar
sandman13
User avatar
Joined: 20 Apr 2018
Last visit: 26 Dec 2019
Posts: 140
Own Kudos:
295
 [8]
Given Kudos: 156
Concentration: Technology, Nonprofit
Schools: ISB '21 (A)
WE:Analyst (Non-Profit and Government)
Schools: ISB '21 (A)
Posts: 140
Kudos: 295
 [8]
Contrary to the charges made by some of its opponents, the provisions 31 Aug 2018, 10:45
6
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
This is one of those classic GMAT problems. The argument type is X has happened in the past, so X will happen again.

Here the weakener is that X may not happen this time. This is what choice E essentially states.

Answer: E
General Discussion
User avatar
redskull1
User avatar
Joined: 11 Feb 2018
Last visit: 25 Sep 2022
Posts: 294
Own Kudos:
203
Given Kudos: 115
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Finance
Schools: Stern '22 (WA) Booth '22 (D) Tuck '22 (D) Tepper '22 (A) Kenan-Flagler '22 (A$) Jones '22 (A$) INSEAD Jan'21 Intake Duke '22 (M$)
GMAT 1: 690 Q47 V37
GMAT 2: 710 Q50 V36
GMAT 3: 750 Q50 V42
Products:
My Reviews
Schools: Stern '22 (WA) Booth '22 (D) Tuck '22 (D) Tepper '22 (A) Kenan-Flagler '22 (A$) Jones '22 (A$) INSEAD Jan'21 Intake Duke '22 (M$)
GMAT 3: 750 Q50 V42
Posts: 294
Kudos: 203
Contrary to the charges made by some of its opponents, the provisions 31 Aug 2018, 11:01
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Nope.Think its D.We are talking about THIS PARTICULAR LAW.Hence E is out of scope.Also the argument is telling us that this law pulled them out of bad times.hence not E.Not 100% happy with D but.”at the time of the new deal” does not strictly imply AFTER the new deal.But D is the best of the lot.Will be interesting to see the OA and OE

Posted from my mobile device
User avatar
GmatDaddy
User avatar
Retired Moderator
Joined: 11 Aug 2016
Last visit: 29 Jan 2022
Posts: 334
Own Kudos:
367
 [3]
Given Kudos: 97
Products:
My Reviews
Posts: 334
Kudos: 367
 [3]
Contrary to the charges made by some of its opponents, the provisions Updated on: 31 Aug 2018, 21:26
Originally posted by GmatDaddy on 31 Aug 2018, 11:42.
Last edited by GmatDaddy on 31 Aug 2018, 21:26, edited 1 time in total.
3
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Contrary to the charges made by some of its opponents, the provisions of the new deficit-reduction law for indiscriminate cuts in the federal budget are justified. Opponents should remember that the New Deal pulled this country out of great economic troubles even though some of its programs were later found to be unconstitutional.

The opponents could effectively defend their position against the author’s strategy by pointing out that


(A) the expertise of those opposing the law is outstanding
This is no ground for defending an argument. Drop it.

(B) the lack of justification for the new law does not imply that those who drew it up were either inept or immoral
Irrelevant. Drop it.

(C) the practical application of the new law will not entail indiscriminate budget cuts
It already is doing so. irrelevant. Drop it.

(D) economic troubles present at the time of the New Deal were equal in severity to those that have led to the present law
Goes against the opponents. Drop it

(E) the fact that certain flawed programs or laws have improved the economy does not prove that every such program can do so
Perfect. Something flawed has beneficial in the past does not mean that it will again necessarily do so.

Answer: E
User avatar
sandysilva
User avatar
Joined: 30 Dec 2016
Last visit: 23 Apr 2019
Posts: 193
Own Kudos:
827
 [2]
Given Kudos: 199
Schools: Schulich Sept '21 DeGroote'21 (S) Alberta"21 (S)
GMAT 1: 650 Q42 V37
GPA: 4
WE:Business Development (Other)
Products:
My Reviews
Schools: Schulich Sept '21 DeGroote'21 (S) Alberta"21 (S)
GMAT 1: 650 Q42 V37
Posts: 193
Kudos: 827
 [2]
Contrary to the charges made by some of its opponents, the provisions 31 Aug 2018, 12:17
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
GmatDaddy
Contrary to the charges made by some of its opponents, the provisions of the new deficit-reduction law for indiscriminate cuts in the federal budget are justified. Opponents should remember that the New Deal pulled this country out of great economic troubles even though some of its programs were later found to be unconstitutional.

The opponents could effectively defend their position against the author’s strategy by pointing out that


(A) the expertise of those opposing the law is outstanding
This is no ground for defending an argument. Drop it.

(B) the lack of justification for the new law does not imply that those who drew it up were either inept or immoral
Irrelevant. Drop it.

(C) the practical application of the new law will not entail indiscriminate budget cuts
It already is doing so. irrelevant. Drop it.

(D) economic troubles present at the time of the New Deal were equal in severity to those that have led to the present law
Goes against the opponents. Drop it

(E) the fact that certain flawed programs or laws have improved the economy does not prove that every such program can do so
Perfect. Something flawed has beneficial in the past does not mean that it will again necessarily do so.

Answer: D

Hi. I guess you wish to choose E but typed D.
User avatar
GmatDaddy
User avatar
Retired Moderator
Joined: 11 Aug 2016
Last visit: 29 Jan 2022
Posts: 334
Own Kudos:
367
Given Kudos: 97
Products:
My Reviews
Posts: 334
Kudos: 367
Contrary to the charges made by some of its opponents, the provisions 31 Aug 2018, 21:25
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
When you answer questions late at night, this is what you do !!
Thanks for pointing it out !!
sandysilva
GmatDaddy
Contrary to the charges made by some of its opponents, the provisions of the new deficit-reduction law for indiscriminate cuts in the federal budget are justified. Opponents should remember that the New Deal pulled this country out of great economic troubles even though some of its programs were later found to be unconstitutional.

The opponents could effectively defend their position against the author’s strategy by pointing out that


(A) the expertise of those opposing the law is outstanding
This is no ground for defending an argument. Drop it.

(B) the lack of justification for the new law does not imply that those who drew it up were either inept or immoral
Irrelevant. Drop it.

(C) the practical application of the new law will not entail indiscriminate budget cuts
It already is doing so. irrelevant. Drop it.

(D) economic troubles present at the time of the New Deal were equal in severity to those that have led to the present law
Goes against the opponents. Drop it

(E) the fact that certain flawed programs or laws have improved the economy does not prove that every such program can do so
Perfect. Something flawed has beneficial in the past does not mean that it will again necessarily do so.

Answer: D

Hi. I guess you wish to choose E but typed D.
avatar
jaisonsunny77
avatar
Joined: 05 Jan 2019
Last visit: 25 Aug 2021
Posts: 460
Own Kudos:
362
 [1]
Given Kudos: 28
Posts: 460
Kudos: 362
 [1]
Contrary to the charges made by some of its opponents, the provisions 16 Jun 2020, 18:39
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Type: weaken the author's argument.

Author's argument: the provisions of the new deficit-reduction law for indiscriminate cuts in the federal budget are justified.

Evidence used by the author: the New Deal (a totally different law from the deficit-reduction law) pulled this country out of great economic troubles even though some of its programs were later found to be unconstitutional.


(A) the expertise of those opposing the law is outstanding - irrelevant.

(B) the lack of justification for the new law does not imply that those who drew it up were either inept or immoral - out of scope.

(C) the practical application of the new law will not entail indiscriminate budget cuts - a mere questioning of the end result of this new law does not necessarily weaken the author's argument.

(D) economic troubles present at the time of the New Deal were equal in severity to those that have led to the present law - irrelevant.

(E) the fact that certain flawed programs or laws have improved the economy does not prove that every such program can do so - this would certainly weaken the use of evidence by the author since we can infer from (E) that what is true of a past event need not be true for the present event. Hence, (E) is the right answer choice.
User avatar
singhaz
User avatar
Joined: 20 Feb 2021
Last visit: 23 May 2023
Posts: 53
Own Kudos:
30
Given Kudos: 24
Location: India
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Technology
GPA: 2.8
Posts: 53
Kudos: 30
Contrary to the charges made by some of its opponents, the provisions 28 Nov 2022, 01:30
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Contrary to the charges made by some of its opponents, the provisions of the new deficit-reduction law for indiscriminate cuts in the federal budget are justified. Opponents should remember that the New Deal pulled this country out of great economic troubles even though some of its programs were later found to be unconstitutional.

The opponents could effectively defend their position against the author’s strategy by pointing out that


(A) the expertise of those opposing the law is outstanding

(B) the lack of justification for the new law does not imply that those who drew it up were either inept or immoral

(C) the practical application of the new law will not entail indiscriminate budget cuts

(D) economic troubles present at the time of the New Deal were equal in severity to those that have led to the present law

(E) the fact that certain flawed programs or laws have improved the economy does not prove that every such program can do so
User avatar
Azakura16
User avatar
Joined: 17 May 2024
Last visit: 10 Dec 2024
Posts: 31
Own Kudos:
35
Given Kudos: 1
Location: United States (AR)
Schools: Booth '27 (I) LBS '26 (S) Said '27 (D)
GMAT Focus 1: 805 Q90 V90 DI90
GPA: 3.5
Products:
My Reviews
Schools: Booth '27 (I) LBS '26 (S) Said '27 (D)
GMAT Focus 1: 805 Q90 V90 DI90
Posts: 31
Kudos: 35
Contrary to the charges made by some of its opponents, the provisions 10 Dec 2024, 09:57
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Quote:
Contrary to the charges made by some of its opponents, the provisions of the new deficit-reduction law for indiscriminate cuts in the federal budget are justified. Opponents should remember that the New Deal pulled this country out of great economic troubles even though some of its programs were later found to be unconstitutional.

The opponents could effectively defend their position against the author’s strategy by pointing out that


(A) the expertise of those opposing the law is outstanding

(B) the lack of justification for the new law does not imply that those who drew it up were either inept or immoral

(C) the practical application of the new law will not entail indiscriminate budget cuts

(D) economic troubles present at the time of the New Deal were equal in severity to those that have led to the present law

(E) the fact that certain flawed programs or laws have improved the economy does not prove that every such program can do so

Premise: The New Deal pulled this country out of great economic troubles, even though some of its programs were later found to be unconstitutional.
Conclusion: The provisions of the new deficit-reduction law for indiscriminate cuts in the budget are justified.

A. Not helpful. “I heard your points, but were you aware that I really know what I’m talking about,” isn’t a famously effective counter argument.
B. Irrelevant. No one is saying that anyone is inept or immoral.
C. This seems to argue with the definition of the deficit-reduction law, which doesn’t strengthen the opponents’ position.
D. This doesn’t help the opponents. If anything, it supports the author’s position.
E. This helps the opponents defend their position. The fact that a flawed program worked in the past is not a guarantee that a similarly flawed law will work now.
Best answer is E.
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7153 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
234 posts