Krishchamp wrote:
Can someone please explain why B cant be the answer?
Negating B actually weakens the conclusion that the cutbacks in the program are both shortsighted and self-defeating.
Please help me understand the crux of the argument
Hello,
Krishchamp. The simple answer is that the argument is based on the proposed cutbacks being passed, so we cannot speculate on what may develop if those cutbacks are
not enacted. The question reminds me
this official question, in which you also have to be careful to evaluate the argument as it is presented to avoid associative answer choices that seem reasonable.
In this case, the argument is the first line of the passage. But if the proposed cutbacks are
both shortsighted and financially self-defeating, then you have to be wondering,
For whom? The passage provides an answer:
taxpayers. Thus, we have to assume that the argument is based on taxpayers footing the bill for the future medical costs these malnourished children will incur. Choice (A) cannot be disproved. Meanwhile, choice (C) provides an impossible-to-tell insight into why certain taxpayers would seek to pass the proposed cutbacks; choice (D) makes a moral judgment that is unrelated to the first line of the passage; and choice (E) goes to extremes by stating that
infant malnutrition could be eradicated if the program had full funding.
I hope that helps. Good luck with your studies.
- Andrew
_________________
I am no longer contributing to GMAT Club. Please request an active Expert or a peer review if you have questions.