The city council will certainly vote to approve the new downtown

Question

The city council will certainly vote to approve the new downtown redevelopment plan, despite the objections of environmentalists. After all, most of the campaign contributions received by members of the city council come from real estate development firms, which stand to benefit from the plan.

Which of the following statements, if true, would most weaken the argument above?

(A) Several members of the city council receive sizable campaign contributions from environmental lobbying groups.

(B) Members of the city council are required to report the size and source of each campaign contribution they receive.

(C) Not every real estate development firm in the city will be able to participate in, and profit from, the new downtown redevelopment plan.

(D) The members of the city council have often voted in ways that are opposed to the interests of their campaign contributors.

(E) Some environmentalists have stated that the new downtown redevelopment plan might be environmentally sound if certain minor modifications are made.

serjikard · Accepted Answer

I picked D. What's the OA?

The city council will certainly vote to approve the new downtown redevelopment plan, despite the objections of environmentalists. After all, most of the campaign contributions received by members of the city council come from real estate development firms, which stand to benefit from the plan.

Which of the following statements, if true, would most weaken the argument above?

(A) Several members of the city council receive sizable campaign contributions from environmental lobbying groups.  Even if this is true, we don't know how big this contributions are or even if they were big how they will affect the city council's vote 
(B) Members of the city council are required to report the size and source of each campaign contribution they receive.  It's already known that real estate development firms make large campaign contributions and thus will not weaken the argument 
(C) Not every real estate development firm in the city will be able to participate in, and profit from, the new downtown redevelopment plan.  This does not weaken the argument either. Even if not every real estate firm would be able to participate does not mean that some will not participate and influence the city council's vote  
(D) The members of the city council have often voted in ways that are opposed to the interests of their campaign contributors.  Correct! If the members of the city council have often voted in ways that are opposed to the interests of their campaign contributors, then they might vote against this time as well, irrespective of contributions. This weakens the argument! 
(E) Some environmentalists have stated that the new downtown redevelopment plan might be environmentally sound if certain minor modifications are made.  This does not weaken the argument.

KyleWiddison · Answer

Watch out for the wording in these arguments. The wording does say "will certainly vote", but that phrase is part of the conclusion and therefore is not factual (conclusions are always opinion - in this case it is a strongly worded opinion). For example, I can state that I will certainly win the lottery because I feel lucky today. I said certainly, but there is no way to be certain about this future, super uncertain event. Recognizing that this "certainty" is just an opinion, we are not required to have universal benefit to real estate firms as answer choice C might suggest.

The argument is structured like this:
Conclusion: The city council will certainly approve development plan (in spite of objections)
Premise: Most campaign contributions come from real estate firms who would benefit from plan

We are asked to weaken the argument, so we need to attack an assumption. Here the author is assuming that because a city council member receives campaign funds from a certain group he/she will always vote in favor of measures that will benefit that group. Answer choice D attacks the assumption by saying that city council members often oppose measures that benefit their campaign contributors.

Does that clear things up?

KW

mohan514 · Answer

even the option a weakens the argument but option d 
is more better

isnt the first option acceptable if we dont have d

KyleWiddison · Answer

A weakens the argument a bit, but the language in the arugment states that "most" of the contributions come from real-estate, so the number and size of individual donations by environmentalist is irrelevant because a majority come from real-estate.  .

It is common to have 2 options that both weaken an argument, hence the "which most weakens" language in the question. Your job is to quickly eliminate the obviously wrong answers so you can differentiate between to "close" answer to see which one is "most" correct.

KW

sathiyavelan · Answer

The below question is very relevant, can anybody answer it? Thanks.
------

Kyle,

Thanks for this, a quick questions here is, the argument states that, the city council will "certainly" vote in favor...

In this case there is no doubt as to whether they will or won't, its certain they will, hence i feel that D is not the apt answer choice.

C would be a better weakning statement in this case.

Kindly advice with your thoughts on this.

Thanks

carmenamos · Answer

Unfortunately, it is impossible to make a decision that will please all segments of society.

amolb29 · Answer

(A) Several members of the city council receive sizable campaign contributions from environmental lobbying groups.

(B) Members of the city council are required to report the size and source of each campaign contribution they receive.
 
(C) Not every real estate development firm in the city will be able to participate in, and profit from, the new downtown redevelopment plan.

(D) The members of the city council have often voted in ways that are opposed to the interests of their campaign contributors.

(E) Some environmentalists have stated that the new downtown redevelopment plan might be environmentally sound if certain minor modifications are

Masterclass_Space · Answer

(A) Several members of the city council receive sizable campaign contributions from environmental lobbying groups. (Incorrect: strengthen)
It suggests that several members also receive hence it is confirming the favor. If this is the case it will strengthen the conclusion to vote.

(B) Members of the city council are required to report the size and source of each campaign contribution they receive. (Incorrect: additional information)
This option suggests disclosing the amount hence adding extra information thus it will not affect the conclusion at all costs.

(C) Not every real estate development firm in the city will be able to participate in, and profit from, the new downtown redevelopment plan. (out of scope)
This option talks about the benefits part of the developer though the conclusion is about a certainty of voting that needs the angle of the city council.

(D) The members of the city council have often voted in ways that are opposed to the interests of their campaign contributors. (the best choice)
It suggests the trend of opposing hence it creates the doubt about certainty of the vote thus it shows disagreement of conclusion.

(E) Some environmentalists have stated that the new downtown redevelopment plan might be environmentally sound if certain minor modifications are (question against whole passage)
This options give the thought about the whole argument is in question as it is changing the plan.

Azakura16 · Answer

Premise: Real estate development firms stand to benefit from the proposed downtown redevelopment plan.
Premise: Environmentalists object to the proposed redevelopment plan.
Premise: Most campaign contributions received by the city councilpeople come from real estate development firms.
Conclusion: The city council will certainly vote to approve the redevelopment plan, despite the objections of environmentalists.

A. This could be seen as a mild weakener, but the argument established that most campaign contributions are from real estate development firms, so if that’s supposed to have some bearing on the vote, the real estate developers would still have an advantage.
B. Irrelevant. Obviously, they have to disclose the amount and sources of campaign contributions if we’re able to determine who the largest contributors are. It doesn’t change the argument.
C. Irrelevant. The conclusion doesn’t require that  every  firm participates or profits.
D. This weakens the argument. If the councilpeople don’t make a habit of voting in line with the wishes of their campaign contributors, then the premise that the development firms are the largest contributors doesn’t support the conclusion as strongly.
E. Irrelevant. We’re not looking to workshop this proposal. We already know that the environmentalists object to it in its current state, which is the one we’re dealing with.
Best answer is D.

Bunuel · Answer

Fixed option E. Thank you for reporting!

The city council will certainly vote to approve the new downtown

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

The city council will certainly vote to approve the new downtown

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