The proposed coal-burning electric plant should be approved,

Question

The proposed coal-burning electric plant should be approved, since no good arguments have been offered against it. After all, all the arguments against it have been presented by competing electricity producers.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the reasoning above depends?

(A) The competing electricity producers would stand to lose large amount of revenue from the building of a coal-burning electric plant.
(B) If a person's arguments against a proposal are defective, then the person has a vested interest in seeing that the proposal is not implemented.
(C) Approval of coal-burning electric plant would please coal suppliers more than disapproval would please suppliers of fuel to the competing electricity producers.
(D) If good arguments are presented for a proposal, then that proposal should be approved.
(E) Arguments made by those who have a vested interest in the outcome of a proposal are not good arguments.

Posted from my mobile device

KarishmaB · Accepted Answer

All arguments against the proposed coal-burning electric plant have been presented by competing electricity producers
So no good arguments have been offered against the proposed coal-burning electric plant.

Conclusion: The proposed coal-burning electric plant should be approved

There are some assumptions here: 
Competitors (people with vested interests) cannot give good arguments.
If there are no good arguments against a proposal, it should be carried out.

Let's look at the options.

(A) The competing electricity producers would stand to lose large amount of revenue from the building of a coal-burning electric plant.

We are not assuming anything about revenue being lost. Irrelevant.

(B) If a person's arguments against a proposal are defective, then the person has a vested interest in seeing that the proposal is not implemented.

Not true. This flips the actual situation. Actually the argument is assuming that if a person has vested interest, his arguments are not good. On the other hand, this option says that if a person's arguments are not good, he has vested interests. Not necessary. Perhaps the person's arguments are not good because he is not smart enough to give good arguments. It needn't be that he must have a vested interest. For example, a media person could talk about the proposal and give some not-so-good arguments against it. But that could just be his opinion. It doesn't mean that he has vested interests in seeing that the proposal is not implemented.

(C) Approval of coal-burning electric plant would please coal suppliers more than disapproval would please suppliers of fuel to the competing electricity producers.

Irrelevant. We are not assuming whom the proposal will please and whom it won't.

(D) If good arguments are presented for a proposal, then that proposal should be approved.

The argument doesn't talk about good arguments FOR a proposal so we are not assuming anything about them.

(E) Arguments made by those who have a vested interest in the outcome of a proposal are not good arguments.

Yes, this is what we are assuming. Since competitors have given the arguments against the proposal, we are assuming that the arguments are not good.

Answer (E)

Bunuel · Answer

EXPLANATION FROM POWER SCORE

This argument concludes that the plant should be approved because those opposed to it presumably have a stake in its rejection:

Premise: All arguments against the plant have been presented by competing electricity producers;

Premise/Sub conclusion: No good arguments have been offered against it;

Main conclusion: The proposed plant should be approved.

This line of reasoning is not sound. Even if all the arguments against the plant are presented by competing electricity producers, this does not automatically mean that these arguments are bad. This is a flaw in the reasoning called "source argument" (or  ad hominem  attack). An argument can still be good even if its proponent has a vested interest in it. Second, even if no good arguments have been offered against the plant, their absence does not amount to an argument in its favor.

Because this is an Assumption question with a rather weak stimulus, you should look for a Defender Assumption that overcomes one of its weaknesses. For instance, it is essential to the author's conclusion that at least some of the arguments made by those who have a vested interest in the failure of the plant be bad. It is also necessary that the absence of a good argument against the plant amounts to a definitive argument in its favor.

Answer choice (A): This answer choice strengthens the argument by implying that the competing electricity producers have a particularly strong interest in seeing the proposal fail. However, the author's conclusion does not rely on the particular nature of such interests: she only needs to establish that they have a negative impact on the strength of the producers' arguments. Try the Assumption Negation technique: what if the producers do not stand to lose large amounts of money? They can still have a vested interest in seeing the project fail, and their arguments can still be defective. This answer choice is incorrect.

Answer choice (B): This answer is the Mistaken Reversal of what we need. Instead of establishing that the competing electricity producers' arguments against the proposal are defective, it  presumes  that they are. If the sufficient and necessary conditions in this answer choice had been reversed, this would have been a great Defender Assumption.

Answer choice (C): The net positive effect of the plant's approval on the energy industry's overall level of happiness might be an argument in favor of building the plant, but it is not essential to the author's conclusion. Even if disapproval pleased the competitors more than approval pleased he supplies, the argument would still hold.

Answer choice (D): Unfortunately, there is no evidence that any good arguments were presented for the proposal, which is why this is not an element essential to the author's conclusion.

Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice. By establishing that arguments made by those who have a vested interest in the proposal's failure are not good arguments, this answer choice provides a necessary premise to the author's conclusion. If these arguments  were  good, on the other hand, her conclusion would no longer be valid.

Bunuel · Answer

EXPLANATION FROM Fox LSAT

This is a commonly-tested flaw. “Because it’s self-serving for you to say X, the exact opposite of X must be true.” That’s bullshit. Just because someone  might  be biased in favor of a certain plan doesn’t mean that the plan can’t still be sound. This argument attacks the proponents of a plan rather than the plan itself.

Specifically, this argument says, “The only arguments that have been presented in opposition to the coal plant are from competing electricity producers, therefore there are no good arguments that have been presented.” We’re asked to find an assumption on which the argument depends: a necessary assumption. My prediction is something like, “Competing electric producers can’t possibly have good arguments against a coal-burning power plant.” This  must  be true in order for the logic of the argument to be valid. If it’s false, the argument fails.

A) Not what we’re looking for. Also “revenue” is too specific. Did the author really assume, necessarily, anything about revenue?

B) This is close, but backward. If it said, “If a person has a vested interest, then their arguments are defective,” then I would love this answer. But that’s not what it says.

C) Huh? Where did the concept of “pleasing” come from?

D) Uh, no. The argument says “only bad arguments against this proposal have been offered, so we should approve it," not “there are good reasons to do it, so let's do it."

E) Yep. This matches our prediction. If this is untrue, the argument fails.

So our answer is E.

chetan2u · Answer

Now this is an ASSUMPTION question, so we have to look for the gap..
We initially talk of lack of 'good arguments', and then says ' after all these are from competitors'..
So we have to connect competitors argument with good argument..

E says exactly the same and fills this gap..

m1033512 · Answer

IMO B .

not good = defective argument 
and they have vested interest in seeing proposal is not implemented .

Posted from my mobile device

goaltop30mba · Answer

I am still confused between d and e

Why is d incorrect? Option e does have a proper linkage though. I agree with e as well.

Still cannot eliminate d on solid grounds!

Posted from my mobile device

celo700 · Answer

We dont know whether the arguments made by competitors are good or bad and hence we cannot assume.

David nguyen · Answer

I think you have mistaken Necessary Assumption with Sufficient Assumption.

(Argument)If there is no good argument against it -> proposal should be approved
(D)If good arguments -> proposal should be approved.

As you can see, No good argument against it is sufficient for approving the plant but not necessary. (D) falls into this trap. If there are good arguments, there are possibilities that the plan still will not be approved.

Subhrajyoti · Answer

if you negate D, it becomes the premise, so that is why D i not correct answer

GMAT0010 · Answer

Ok, I got confused between B and E. But E is correct because : it follows from the premise to conclusion. People who do have interest in the outcome give the wrong arguments. This makes sense

UUBA · Answer

option E says "Arguments made by those who have a vested interest in the outcome of  a  proposal are not good arguments". Is it not too general. Because of this, it makes this answer choice difficult to choose as the correct answer. I understand that in this context it can be an assumption. I think this answer option could have been better worded as "Arguments made by those who have a vested interest in the outcome of  the  proposal are not good arguments". Any opinion??

unraveled · Answer

The proposed coal-burning electric plant should be approved, since no good arguments have been offered against it. After all, all the arguments against it have been presented by competing electricity producers.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the reasoning above depends?

(A) The competing electricity producers would  stand to lose large amount of revenue  from the building of a coal-burning electric plant. - WRONG. Looks good but it is not necessarily required for the conclusion to be true. Without revenue aspect also the argument stands to hold.
(B) If a person's arguments against a proposal are defective, then the person has a vested interest in seeing that the proposal is not implemented. - WRONG. Trap if one misunderstands the passage. Reverse case is presented in the conditional form. If vested interest is there then proposals are defective is what passage deals in.
(C) Approval of coal-burning electric plant  would please  coal suppliers  more than  disapproval would please suppliers of fuel to the competing electricity producers. - WRONG. No such comparison is necessary for the conclusion to hold. 
(D) If good arguments are presented for a proposal, then that proposal should be approved. - WRONG. Out of the three possibilities - bad arguments, good arguments and absence of either of them - only bad arguments is discussed. Absence of good arguments does not mean we can make conclusion base on them.
(E) Arguments made by those who have a vested interest in the outcome of a proposal are not good arguments. - CORRECT. If they have good arguments then we are in trouble OR we can say negating this would break the conclusion apart.

Answer E.

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

The proposed coal-burning electric plant should be approved,

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 proposed coal-burning electric plant should be approved,

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