The recent decline in the value of the dollar was triggered by a predi

thanks CJ. I love your explanations.

No it isn't. Option (D) is talking about what happened in the past. The argument tells us what happened this time. The given prediction-dollar-deficit relation may have been accurate this time. There is no conflict.
But because in the past without deficit, predictions caused decline in value, it leads us to believe that the same could happen again in the future.
_________________

Dear GMATNinja and other experts, MartyTargetTestPrep.GMATNinjaTwoTwo,generi.
I did not understand
,

IMO,
this sentence tells me a causal relationship that prediction of slower economic growth caused the decline in value of dollar.


the author argues that no huge budget deficit, no the adverse impact of the prediction.but the budget deficit did happened and it did caused the prediction

so I think the logic is that the budget deficit caused the prediction , and then the prediction caused the declines in the currency.
it's like the single lane that allows one direction for drivers.

I am a bit confused that ,especial the "together".

actually I picked up C because I read it as the the declines in currency happened before the budget deficit, suggesting other cause that before budget deficit. I know I missed the choice C and I do not intend to create my own choices on gmat questions, I just want your confirm whether my reasoning is correct.

thanks in advance.


the argument focus on the causal relationship between budget deficit and declines in currency.
D here, prediction caused declines . do you think it restates the premise in the argument because the declines was triggered by prediction.


have a nice day.

Prediction of slower economic growth- - -> Decline in currency value
No huge budget deficit -- - -- > No decline in currency

Conclusion: Decrease Budget deficit

How to weaken?
In short:
X leads to Y
If No Z then no Y
== > means X will be active if Z is there
X= prediction of slower economic growth
Z= huge budget deficit
Y= decline in the value of the dollar


Weaken:
i. X can be active even if Z not there
Or
ii. X can not be active even if Z is there
Or
iii. X and Z doesn’t lead to Y



Irrelevant: Government make little attempt or more attempt, we don’t know what would be the outcome.


Z has not caused X

But we are looking for end result of Y
We don’t care whether Z leads to X or X is lead by other factors . What we care is end result of Y by X if Z is there.
Close option but incorrect



Y happened before X
Reject:
i. we don’t relation with Z .(We don’t know whether decrease in budget deficient would prevent future decline in currency. No information is given about it)
ii. Maybe Y has more effect after X happens( Maybe further decline in currency after prediction happens )

Quote:

(D) Before there was a large budget deficit, predictions of slower economic growth frequently caused declines in the dollar’s value

Before Z, X leads to Y.
It means whether even Z is not there, X can lead to Y.
Matches with our i. prethinking .


Ok , Now we bring a new addition factor. Other events + Prediction -- > decline in currency.
If Z --- > X+ X” --- > Y
Still Strengthens claim that still it is because of budget deficit it causes future decline in currency.

What you read:
Before there was a large budget deficit, predictions of slower economic growth frequently caused declines in the dollar’s value.
or they could have written: Before when there was large budget deficit , predictions of slower economic growth frequently caused declines in the dollar’s value
What is given:
Before there was a large budget deficit, predictions of slower economic growth frequently caused declines in the dollar’s value.

This is a causal argument.

Cause: Budget deficit > Intermediate cause: Predictions about slower economic growth > Effect: decline in the value of currency.

D says that even if we were to get rid of the distal cause (budget deficit), the effect remains intact, thereby weakening the conclusion that such deficits are responsible for the decline in the currency.
_________________

(D) is the most suitable option



This does not tell us anything about the relation among budget deficit, dollar value and predictions



According to the question, the decline in dollar value was due to the prediction of a slower economic growth. But this decline would have not happened if the deficit were lower. So we are not really sure whether economic growth actually slowed down. So relation between the budget deficit and economic slowdown is irrelevant



Ok. So, besides the prediction, at least one other factor can also influence the dollar value. What is it? We are not sure



So when budget deficits were not large, predictions of slower economic growth have caused declines in the dollar's value more than one time. This does help us understand that lower budget deficits may not shield the dollar's value against the predictions of economic slowdown. Good to keep it for now



This may sound attractive, as it indirectly states that budget deficit leads to decline in the currency value. However, this is not what we are looking for. The conclusion in the question stem states that lower budget deficit shields the dollar's value from the ill effects of the prediction of economic slowdown. So, even if large budget deficit result in decline in dollar's value, (E) does not confirm that reducing the deficit would nullify the effect of the prediction of economic slowdown on the dollar value


Please point out the errors, logical, grammatical and others, in my explanation. That would help me

CONCLUSION - Large budget deficit should be reduced to prevent future currency decline

GIVEN -

1) Recent decline in the currency was due to prediction of less economic growth
2) It would not have impacted much if it would not have been for govt's huge budget deficit

WEAKNER - What new information would reduce the belief in the conclusion?

ANSWER CHOICE ANALYSIS -

A) Attempt made by govt doesn't impact the conclusion
B) Budget deficit as a whole is not talked, the large budget deficit is being talked about
C) Past data
D) CORRECT - Before the large budget deficit, slow economic growth was the reason
E) other events not talked about in the passage

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.
_________________