Some years ago, an editorial defended Unite States government restrict

Question

Some years ago, an editorial defended Unite States government restrictions on academic freedom, arguing that scientists who receive public funding cannot rightly “detach themselves from the government’s policies on national security.” Yet the same editorial criticized the Soviet government for not allowing scientists to “detach themselves from politics.” If there is a significant difference between the principles involved in each case, the editorial should have explained what that difference is.

The author of the passage criticizes the editorial by

(A) disputing certain factual claims made in the editorial

(B) pointing out an apparent inconsistency in the editorial

(C) describing an alleged exception to a general claim made in the editorial

(D) refuting an assumption on which the argument of the editorial appears to have been based

(E) drawing conclusions from the editorial different from the conclusion drawn by the writer of the editorial

abhishekdadarwal2009 · Answer

Some years ago, an editorial defended Unite States government restrictions on academic freedom, arguing that scientists who receive public funding cannot rightly “detach themselves from the government’s policies on national security.” Yet the same editorial criticized the Soviet government for not allowing scientists to “detach themselves from politics.” If there is a significant difference between the principles involved in each case, the editorial should have explained what that difference is.

The author of the passage criticizes the editorial by

(A) disputing certain factual claims made in the editorial 
the claims are not disputed
 (B) pointing out an apparent inconsistency in the editorial 
if editorial defended the action at one instance but criticized at another then it is clear case of inconsistent behaviors.
 (C) describing an alleged exception to a general claim made in the editorial 
The exception is made by the editorial and not by the author.(bait choice)
 (D) refuting an assumption on which the argument of the editorial appears to have been based 
the assumption on which the claims were made is not disputed.
 (E) drawing conclusions from the editorial different from the conclusion drawn by the writer of the editorial 
inconsistent answer choice :P , the writer of the editorial is not discussed.

deepverma · Answer

Author's Argument:  editorial defended  US government  restrictions on academic freedom and said who receive public funding cannot rightly “detach themselves from the government’s policies on national security.” 
But criticized the  Soviet government  for same restriction to “detach themselves from politics.” 
If there is a significant difference between the  principles involved in each case , the editorial should have explained what that difference is.

Prethink:  Criticism of Editorial- "Taking 2 different Stance for the same action but different government" Probably Bias.

(A) disputing certain factual claims made in the editorial  : Wrong , not disputing any FACTUAL claims

(B) pointing out an apparent inconsistency in the editorial  Correct: Inconsistent-stand Or Bias -  Same as prethink

(C) describing an alleged exception to a general claim made in the editorial   Wrong

(D) refuting an assumption on which the argument of the editorial appears to have been based   Wrong Author didnt discussed any assumption

(E) drawing conclusions from the editorial different from the conclusion drawn by the writer of the editorial :  Wrong Author didnt conclude but demanded more explanation.

napolean92728 · Answer

Passage Summary :
 
 The  editorial  supports U.S. government restrictions on academic freedom (scientists shouldn't detach from national security policies if they're publicly funded). 
 But the  same editorial criticizes  the Soviet government for not letting scientists "detach from politics." 
 The  author of the passage  points out that if there's a valid  difference in principle  between these two cases, the editorial  failed to explain it .  
So, the passage highlights a  contradiction or inconsistency  in the editorial’s stance.

✅  Correct Answer: (B) pointing out an apparent inconsistency in the editorial 
 Why it's correct: 
 
 The author is  not making a counter-argument  or proposing a new theory. 
 Instead, they are showing that the editorial applies  double standards : it supports government control in one context (U.S.) and criticizes it in another (Soviet Union), without clarifying the difference. 
 This is a  clear inconsistency , and the author criticizes the editorial for  not resolving  it.

❌  Eliminating Other Options:

(A)  disputing certain factual claims made in the editorial 
 Why it’s wrong: 
 
 The author doesn't question  facts  in the editorial. 
 There's no discussion about whether  scientists are or aren’t  doing something, or about the truth of any data. 
 The issue is with the  logic or consistency , not with  facts .

(C)  describing an alleged exception to a general claim made in the editorial 
 Why it’s wrong: 
 
 The author doesn’t present an  exception  to a general claim. 
 Instead, they present  two conflicting cases  treated differently by the editorial. 
 There's  no claim-exception structure  in this passage.

(D)  refuting an assumption on which the argument of the editorial appears to have been based 
 Why it’s wrong: 
 
 The author does  not refute an assumption . 
 They  don’t address  the assumption behind national security or public funding. 
 The focus is not on challenging premises but on highlighting the  lack of consistent reasoning .

(E)  drawing conclusions from the editorial different from the conclusion drawn by the writer of the editorial 
 Why it’s wrong: 
 
 The author isn’t offering an  alternate conclusion . 
 They're not saying what should be concluded — they're saying the  editorial’s reasoning is flawed  because it fails to explain a contradiction.

Some years ago, an editorial defended Unite States government restrict

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Some years ago, an editorial defended Unite States government restrict

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards