Sorry for delayed response.
I've a query.
The government has proposed a plan requiring young people to perform services to correct various current social ills, especially those in education and housing. As per my understanding this part with associated with government thought.
Government service, however, should be compelled only in response to a direct threat to the nation’s existence. For that reason, the proposed program should not be implemented. And this is some others countering or evaluating the thought.
As the same government can't propose one and then the next time counters the same.
Hence as per the question stem Government assumed what C depicts.
E would have been correct if the question was Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument opposing the plan depends?

Hi, angel-

The issue here is that government has "proposed" one thing but it is not necessarily "compelled" to do that thing. This is a bit unclear because the language in the question is not perfectly accurate, but that is what it seems to say.

So, in other words: there is a proposal to make young people correct social ills. However, there is a theory that government should only be compelled to act in response to a direct threat to a nation's existence.

Then, the assumption shows the missing piece; young people's correction of social ills is NOT a direct threat. That's why the argument can conclude that this proposal is not something the government is compelled to act on.

Hope that's clearer. The problem with the way the original is written is that is uses the word "compelled" incorrectly. You cannot "be compelled only in response to..."- you must "be compelled to DO SOMETHING only in response to..."

Good luck,
Alex
Knewton Verbal Lead

The second sentence is a principle that must be treated as a premise in this line of reasoning. The question is, if you accept this premise as valid, is it logical to conclude that the proposed program should not be implemented? Only if you accept the underlining assumption that the current social ills do not directly threaten the nation's existence

conclusion---- the proposal program should not be implemented.
why? because social ills, especially those in education and housing doesnt pose a threat to national existence.
between e and d
rejected d because young people believes that
if we negate e conclusion---- weaken
hence e
correct me if my reasoning is wrong.

In option E if we negate it says none of social ills that currently afflict the nation do not pose a direct threat to nation's existence. In spite of weakening it is strengthening the conclusion. SO how the answer is correct .

manjot123, you are correct!

viv007, your negation is correct. So it is saying that none do not........which means that all do. Being this is the case, this destroys our conclusion and does not support it. Keep in the mind the program is saying we should NOT implement, so we want something that says we should. And (E) does just that.
_________________

why not B. can someone explain pls

Can anyone explain why not C, because they are asking from government’s perspective n not the author’s


Sent from my iPhone using GMAT Club Forum mobile app

Hi,
Here we need something that bridge the gap between premise and conclusion and makes the conclusion more stable,
C weakens the conclusion by saying just opposite..

Posted from my mobile device

somya29verma, (C) cannot be the answer because it doesn't destroy our conclusion if we negate it. For assumption questions, you negate the answers. If the answer then destroys the conclusion, you have your answer.

(C): Crises in education and housing constitute a threat to the nation's existence
Negation: Crises in education and housing DO NOT constitute a threat to the nation's existence

-- Using this, and our conclusion being that you should not act unless it is a threat, this strengthens our conclusion and thus cannot be the correct answer.



HAPPYatHARVARD, (B) cannot be our answer for reason above: The negation of the answer doesn't work.

(B): The nation's existence is directly threatened only in times of foreign attack
Negation: The nation's existence is NOT directly threatened only in times of foreign attack

-- OK, so how does this weaken the conclusion that social ills should be funded only if they are a national threat? There is no connection and it is completely out of scope for this question. We are told that we are threatened even not during times of foreign attack. But does that include social ills? We have no idea.


Let me know if you have any further questions.
_________________

nightblade354
thanks for responding.
(B): The nation's existence is directly threatened only in times of foreign attack
Negation: The nation's existence is directly threatened NOT only in times of foreign attack

That means other reasons might threaten it too..
So, it is not out of scope. correct me please, if i am wrong.
Thanks

By "Out of Scope", I mean irrelevant. It is either too far beyond what we want or it has nothing to do with conclusion. In this case, I would argue because it is not connected to social ills that it is the latter. But to each their own on this matter. Just know that it cannot be correct because of negation
_________________

- The government has proposed a plan requiring young people to perform services to correct various current social ills, especially those in education and housing.
- Government service, however, Rephrasing to make it simpler to understand
Such kind of service should be compelled only in response to a direct threat to the nation's existence.
- Conclusion: For that reason, the proposed program should not be implemented.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the government depends?
Answer should be something in the line that says that these service are not required since it does not risk the nation's existence.

(A) Government-required service by young people cannot correct all social ills
Success of these plans is not mentioned in the argument.

(B) The nation's existence is directly threatened only in times of foreign attack
What is the relation to services like housing and education especially if there is a war (Nothing mentioned in passage to prove this)

(C) Crises in education and housing constitute a threat to the nation's existence
Then in such a case the program MUST be implemented, but the conclusion is saying to not implement- that means education and housing is NOT a threat according to the argument.

(D) The nation's young people believe that current social ills pose no direct threat to the nation's existence
Young people's beliefs is not mentioned in this passage, nor any indication of this. Just like A success of these plans are not mentioned in the passage.

(E) Some of the social ills that currently afflict the nation do not pose a direct threat to the nation's existence.
If some of these social ills are not posing a direct threat, then it need not be implemented, hence this supports the conclusion.

Govt plan - require young people to perform social service esp in education and housing
Govt service should be compelled only in response to threat to nation's existence

Conclusion: The proposed program should not be implemented.

There is a gap in the logic. The author is assuming that problems in education and housing are not threat to a nation's existence

(A) Government-required service by young people cannot correct all social ills
He does not assume that required social service CANNOT correct all ills. He says that it SHOULD not be used for all

(B) The nation's existence is directly threatened only in times of foreign attack
No. The argument does not assume that only foreign attack constitutes threat to nation's existence.

(C) Crises in education and housing constitute a threat to the nation's existence
The assumption is opposite - that they are not a threat.

(D) The nation's young people believe that current social ills pose no direct threat to the nation's existence
We need the assumption of the author. He assumes nothing about what young people believe in.

(E) Some of the social ills that currently afflict the nation do not pose a direct threat to the nation's existence
Yes, he does assume this. He assumes education and housing issues - some of the current ills - do not pose a direct threat to the nation's existence.

Answer (E)
_________________

Hi VeritasKarishma nightblade354

I too marked E, but after reading few comments above when I reread the question stem I am a bit confused now.

The question stem states that -

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the government depends?

Now I think option 'E' is an assumption for the author's conclusion but how can we say that it's also the assumption for government ?

Shouldn't stating government in the question impact the answer, as there's nothing given in the argument which might point us to the assumption taken by the government when coming up with it's plan.

Can you please help.


Thanks
Saurabh

Posted from my mobile device

The government isn't assuming anything. The statement is a view of the author of the question. The author is saying if social ills are a threat -- government must act on it. If not, then do not act on it.
I think you are overthinking this/reading too much into it. This is an opinion given by an author who is arguing something.

Does this help?
_________________

I too marked E, but after reading few comments above when I reread the question stem I am a bit confused now.

The question stem states that -

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the government depends?

Now I think option 'E' is an assumption for the author's conclusion but how can we say that it's also the assumption for government ?

Shouldn't stating government in the question impact the answer, as there's nothing given in the argument which might point us to the assumption taken by the government when coming up with it's plan.

Can you please help.


Thanks
Saurabh

Posted from my mobile device[/quote]

The government isn't assuming anything. The statement is a view of the author of the question. The author is saying if social ills are a threat -- government must act on it. If not, then do not act on it.
I think you are overthinking this/reading too much into it. This is an opinion given by an author who is arguing something.

Does this help?[/quote]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi,

I am saying the same thing, but how does government depends on this assumption as stated in the question stem ?

The government has proposed a plan requiring young people to perform services to correct various current social ills, especially those in education and housing. Government service, however, should be compelled only in response to a direct threat to the nation's existence. For that reason, the proposed program should not be implemented.

Background: The government has proposed a plan requiring young people to perform services to correct various current social ills, especially those in education and housing
Premise: Government service should be compelled only in response to a direct threat to the nation's existence
Conclusion: the proposed program should not be implemented

The Government portion is not an opinion, but fact. The premise and conclusion are opinion. I do not know how else to break this down. The argument hinges on what the Government has said and the counter-argument by the author.
_________________

Hello experts,

Even after reading above threads, i have a doubt.
Option E states "Some of the social ills that currently afflict the nation do not pose a direct threat to the nation's existence"
But that means atleast some social ills pose a direct threat to nations existence. And if there is any threat to nations existence program should be implemented.

Also i am not a great fan of negation technique. Is there any way else to understand this question.
Thnx in advance.

Posted from my mobile device