State spokesperson: Many businesspeople who have not been to

Question

State spokesperson: Many businesspeople who have not been to our state believe that we have an inadequate road system. Those people are mistaken, as is obvious from the fact that in each of the past six years, our state has spent more money per mile on road improvements than any other state.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the reasoning in the spokesperson’s argument?

(A) In the spokesperson’s state, spending on road improvements has been increasing more slowly over the past six years than it has in several other states.

(B) Adequacy of a state’s road system is generally less important to a businessperson considering doing business there than is the availability of qualified employees.

(C) Over the past six years, numerous businesses have moved into the state.

(D) In general, the number of miles of road in a state’ road system depends on both the area and the population of the state.

(E) Only states with seriously inadequate road systems need to spend large amounts of money on road improvements.

sathishkumar434 · Accepted Answer

The question stem says that this state is spending more money per mile compared to other states. This amount is relative to the amount of money spent by other states. But, the statement doesn't say whether the money that was spent by this state was sufficient to get the road system to a adequate condition.

Let us say that the road system of this state was absolutely horrible 6 years ago, whereas the road system of other states were already in a great condition. The other states with good road system may have to spend only $1 per mile to maintain it. But, this state may have to spend $10 per mile to get the roads to a good condition. Now, if the state with bad roads spends only $2 per mile, it satisfies the condition that it is spending more than other states, but, the road condition is not going to improve considerably because $10 per mile is necessary.

From Option E we can infer that if a state is spending lot of money on roads then it has inadequate road systems. If the state's road condition had improved because of the amount of money invested by the state, then after say 3 or 4 years the state's spending on road system should have decreased. But the question stem says that this state has been spending more than other states from the past 6 years. So, there is a good chance that the roads of this state are still in a bad state.

Option D doesn't give much information. The number of miles depends on the area of the state. So, the number of miles of road system is more for a state with bigger area and population. If the number of miles is more, then the TOTAL amount of money spent on road system may be more. But the question stem says spending PER MILE.

Eg: A state with 100 miles may have to spend $100
 A state with 500 miles may have to spend $500

The spending per mile for both the states is $1. So, the number of miles within a state doesn't help in weakening or strengthening the argument as the question stem says that the spending per mile is more for this state compared to other states.

Hope this helps.

amit2k9 · Answer

A,C and D clearly misses the point.

B and E debunk the conclusion.

B - brings along a new element into consideration.
E - Gives a qualified reasoning for money/mile.

E.

timing is around 1min and 10 sec.

whamberto · Answer

I chose E for this question:

The conclusion of this passage is:  Those people are mistaken.

A. Although this answer choice may appear to weaken the argument, the fact that this state still spends more money per mile on road improvements still stands. Therefore, this answer is incorrect.

B. We are not concerned about what a business person finds important. We are trying to highlight a weakness with the relationship between adequate road systems and amount of money spent.

C. The answer choice does not specifically mention that the people leaving the state are doing so because of the roads. Also, the statement says that similar amounts of people are entering the state as leaving, so this wouldn't weaken the argument anyway.

D. We are not concerned about the number of miles of roads and what they depend on.

E. This answer choice illustrates a point that large amount of spending is needed to improve roads that are inadequate. Therefore, this is the correct choice.

TGC · Answer

A silly point with a silly doubt:

each of the past six years , our state
has spent more money per mile on road improvements than any other state.

(E).Only states with seriously inadequate road systems need to spend large amounts of money on road
improvements.

Ok accepted that states with seriously inadequate road systems need to spend large amounts .

But this state has already spent more in last six years, so it can be the case that CURRENTLY it has adequate ROAD system as the spokesperson talks about PRESENT and not PAST status of ROAD system.

Why (D) cannot be correct.

As in new information answers we are allowed to assume 1-2 assumptions as per RON's videos.

Per (D) it can be true that the state's population and SIZE is more and thus the $$/mile would be more.

And this More $$/mile wouldn't necessarily imply the ADEQUATE ROAD SYSTEM

Plz advise !

vnigam21 · Answer

The spokesperson argues that the state’s road system is not inadequate , since the amount the state spends on road improvement is more, per mile of road, than any other state spends . The question asks to find the answer choice that most seriously undermines this reasoning. :?:

This will be the choice that shows how a large amount of spending on road improvement need not indicate that the road system is good. Choice E is the :arrow:

best answer. It points out that spending an unusually large amount on road improvements tends to indicate that the roads being improved must be in unusually poor condition. :done

Choice A is incorrect since it gives no reason for thinking that spending a large amount of money on road improvements is a poor indicator of the quality of the road system. Choice B and C are incorrect. Although the spokesperson’s argument is addressed to business people, it is solely about whether the state’s road system is adequate. The importance of the road system in attracting business to the state is therefore not relevant to this argument (choice B). The number of businesses relocating into or out of the state is also therefore not relevant to the argument (choice C). Choice D is incorrect since the relevance of the statistic that the spokesperson uses about spending per mile of road is not affected by the information provided here about road systems and state size.

supersaiyan · Answer

CAN ANYONE EXPLAIN WHY IS IT OPTION E

ReedArnoldMPREP · Answer

First thing I do is read the question:

So I am trying to weaken an argument.

Then I untangle the argument.

So the argument is that we do not have an inadequate road system, BECAUSE we spend more per mile on road improvements than any other state.

How I weaken this reasoning? Well I need to show that spending per mile ≠ adequate road system.

I mean, in some ways this is like saying, "I'm very healthy, I spent more money going to the hospital last year than anyone else.... Spending lots of money might be an indication of severe disfunction in the roadways!

This seems irrelevant. We already know spending is 'high,' the trend doesn't seem to matter. The question is 'does high spending MEAN adequate roads?'

This is a red herring. I don't actually care why the business people might use our roads. I just wonder if they're right that the roads are 'inadequate.'

See B. Not relevant.

Again, this doesn't break the link between spending and adequacy the author is trying to set up.

Yep, okay. This shows high spending actually is a sign of INADEQUATE roads, not adequate ones. It has to be E.

Vegita · Answer

Hi  ReedArnoldMPREP

I just want to delve a little deeper into the elimination of option D and confirm my process for eliminating it was correct.

What if we were told that the area of the state was small and the population larger? Then would you agree that even though there is larger spending the road system is inadequate because then will be more vehicles on the roads? This would also weaken the argument, but since this is not given we can eliminate option D.

*I am wondering if this level of critical thinking necessary for CR or am I thinking too much....

ReedArnoldMPREP · Answer

It seems to me that requires us to make some assumptions that having a denser population means more cars on the road, and that more cars on the road means more 'damage' to the road leading to inadequacy. Typically, the more assumptions you have to bring in to justify an answer the less likely that answer is of being right. I mean, if the other four answers were clearly wrong, I guess I'd choose something like this, but that doesn't 'feel' like a GMAT answer you're likely to see.

But you're doing some good GMAT thinking, here.

KarishmaB · Answer

Premises:  
Many businesspeople who have not been to our state believe that we have an inadequate road system.
In each of the past six years, our state has spent more money per mile on road improvements than any other state.

Conclusion:   We have an adequate road system.

We need to weaken the conclusion that the state has adequate road system.

(A) In the spokesperson’s state, spending on road improvements has been increasing more slowly over the past six years than it has in several other states.

The rate of increase in spending doesn't matter. The spokesperson says that the state is spending the most money per mile. Even if the money being spent is increasing at a slow rate say only 10% increase every year, they may have started with a big enough number such that this much increase is enough.

(B) Adequacy of a state’s road system is generally less important to a businessperson considering doing business there than is the availability of qualified employees.

Irrelevant.

(C) Over the past six years, numerous businesses have moved into the state.

Irrelevant.

(D) In general, the number of miles of road in a state’ road system depends on both the area and the population of the state.

How the number of miles required and built are calculated is irrelevant. More area and denser population will likely require longer and more roads. But our argument talks about money per mile so  the total miles are of no consequence to us.

(E) Only states with seriously inadequate road systems need to spend large amounts of money on road improvements.

Correct. What if the very fact that in each of the past six years, the state has spent more money per mile on road improvements than any other state indicates that the road infra is inadequate? If only states with seriously inadequate road systems need to spend large amounts of money on road improvements, then it becomes likely that the state has an inadequate road system and that is why it is spending large amounts of money.

Answer (E)

VerbalBot · Answer

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

State spokesperson: Many businesspeople who have not been to

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

State spokesperson: Many businesspeople who have not been to

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