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

Question

The recent decline in the value of the dollar was triggered by a prediction of slower economic growth in the coming year. But that prediction would not have adversely affected the dollar had it not been for the government’s huge budget deficit, which must therefore be decreased to prevent future currency declines.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion about how to prevent future currency declines?

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion about how to prevent future currency declines?

(A) The government has made little attempt to reduce the budget deficit.

(B) The budget deficit has not caused a slowdown in economic growth.

(C) The value of the dollar declined several times in the year prior to the recent prediction of slower economic growth.

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

(E) When there is a large budget deficit, other events in addition to predictions of slower economic growth sometimes trigger declines in currency value.

The Official Guide for GMAT Review, 10th Edition, 2003

Practice Question  
Question No.: CR 61
Page: 514

KarishmaB · Accepted Answer

Dollar decline was triggered by a prediction of slower economic growth in the coming year. 
Govt has huge budget deficit that is why the prediction affected dollar.

Conclusion: To avoid future currency declines, decrease budget deficit.

The conclusion is saying that if budget deficit is reduced, future currency declines can be avoided. We need to weaken this.

(A) The government has made little attempt to reduce the budget deficit.

It doesn't matter whether the Govt has tried to reduce deficit or not.

(B) The budget deficit has not caused a slowdown in economic growth.

The argument does not say that the budget deficit (BD) caused slowdown in economic growth (S). We don't know what is causing economic growth (S). 
All the argument says is that the presence of BD and the prediction of S triggered dollar decline. 
The cause of S is unknown and irrelevant. We are discussing the cause of dollar decline.

(C) The value of the dollar declined several times in the year prior to the recent prediction of slower economic growth.

Since there is budget deficit, it is possible that varies different events are causing dollar decline. So fixing the deficit may avoid dollar decline.

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

This says that dollar declines happened because of S even before the presence of BD. So even if BD is not there, S could cause dollar declines. This puts a question mark on our theory. Reducing BD may not help us avoid dollar declines then. This is correct.

(E) When there is a large budget deficit, other events in addition to predictions of slower economic growth sometimes trigger declines in currency value.

This helps our conclusion. Lowering budget deficit may help us avoid dollar decline.

Answer (D)

tarek99 · Answer

I would choose D as my answer.

We first must understand what is the main conclusion of the argument. The argument concludes that the government’s huge budget deficit caused the the decline in the dollar value. In order to weaken the argument, we must find another cause to the decline in the dollar value.

a) it does not address whether it caused a decline in dollar value
b) it does not address whether it caused a decline in dollar value
c) All it says here is that something else other than the prediction of slow economic growth must have caused the decline in dollar value, but that something else could still be the government's budget deficit.
d) this option directly shows another cause that must have led to the decline of dollar's value. It directly reveals that the large budget deficit did not cause the decline of dollar value.
e) it strengthens the argument

spriya · Answer

hanumayamma · Answer

(A) The government has made little attempt to reduce the budget deficit.

(B) The budget deficit has not caused a slowdown in economic growth.

(C) The value of the dollar declined several times in the year prior to the recent prediction of slower economic growth.

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

(E) When there is a large budget deficit, other events in addition to predictions of slower economic growth sometimes trigger declines in currency value.

Answer: D

MALD2011 · Answer

" But that prediction would not have adversely affected the dollar had it not been for the government’s huge budget deficit,"

It means that prediction of slower economic growth would not have affected the dollar's value. It was the huge budget deficit which affected the value of the dollar

I will go for  D , my explanation is below.

The recent decline in the value of the dollar was triggered by a prediction of slower economic growth in the coming year. But that prediction would not have adversely affected the dollar had it not been for the government’s huge budget deficit, which must therefore be decreased to prevent future currency declines.
Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion about how to prevent future currency declines?
Which argument we are trying to weaken here :
government’s huge budget deficit, which must therefore be decreased to prevent future currency declines.

(A) The government has made little attempt to reduce the budget deficit.  (This does not provide evidence that budget deficit was the only reason)

(B) The budget deficit has not caused a slowdown in economic growth. (Not relevant in the argument here)

(C) The value of the dollar declined several times in the year prior to the recent prediction of slower economic growth.  (This does not talk about the budget deficit was present at these times of decline or not)

(D) Before there was a large budget deficit, predictions of slower economic growth frequently caused declines in the dollar’s value.  (This directly concludes that large budget deficit is not responsible for the decline in the dollar's value which weakens the   conclusion that government’s huge budget deficit, which must therefore be decreased to prevent future currency declines. )

(E) When there is a large budget deficit, other events in addition to predictions of slower economic growth sometimes trigger declines in currency value.  (This infers that " government’s huge budget deficit, which must therefore be decreased to prevent future currency declines.")

Skywalker18 · Answer

The recent decline in the value of the dollar was triggered by a prediction of slower economic growth in the coming year. But that prediction would not have adversely affected the dollar had it not been for the government’s huge budget deficit, which must therefore be decreased to prevent future currency declines.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion about how to prevent future currency declines?

Type- Weaken
Boil it down - Slow growth in next year triggers decline in dollar value
 Decrease government’s huge budget deficit to prevent future currency declines
Pre- thinking- What if currency declines occurred even without huge budget deficit.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion about how to prevent future currency declines?
(A) The government has made little attempt to reduce the budget deficit. Incorrect 
(B) The budget deficit has not caused a slowdown in economic growth. Irrelevant
(C) The value of the dollar declined several times in the year prior to the recent prediction of slower economic growth. Irrelevant
(D) Before there was a large budget deficit, predictions of slower economic growth frequently caused declines in the dollar’s value. Weakens
Effect was present even before cause 
(E) When there is a large budget deficit, other events in addition to predictions of slower economic growth sometimes trigger declines in currency value. Strengthens

Answer D

sayantanc2k · Answer

Premise: Huge budget deficit ( not prediction of slower economic growth) causes value of dollar to decline....." But that prediction would not have adversely affected the dollar  had it not been for the government’s huge budget deficit."
Conclusion: Budget deficit should be decreased to prevent decline in value of dollar.

Option D: Not budget deficit, but prediction of slower economic growth caused value of dollar to decline - this option implies that decreasing budget deficit may NOT prevent decline in value of dollar.

Hence option D is a weakening statement.

ChiranjeevSingh · Answer

Option D provides new information "Before there was a large budget deficit". This context was not provided in the original passage.

Makes sense?

- CJ

hanminhee · Answer

Hi guys,

Please help me rule out option B. My reasoning is that:
Huge budget deficit--> prediction of slow economy leads to value decline

If Huge budget deficit doesn't cause the economy slowdown, the prediction of slow economy must come from a different reason, not from huge budget deficit. Therefore, it weakens the argument.

I know B is wrong, but someone please help fix my reasoning?I don't understand why people say B is not relevant

Thanks

sayantanc2k · Answer

The argument is about a relation between the decline in currency value and its cause (either slower economic growth or budget deficit). The argument is not about a relation between slower economic growth and budget deficit - "leads to value decline" is not a part of option B.

Alexey1989x · Answer

A) No effect and OFS
B) The causality established in the argument is between budget deficit and currency decline, so no effect.
C) Even if true, then budget deficit might have existed and caused currency decline, so no effect.
D) Logically correct. No Cause BUT Effect, thus definitely weakens.
E) Indefinitely presents other alternative causes that may result in the same outcome, however this doesn't weaken current conclusion.

seed · Answer

Conclusion: Highlighted above.

(A) The government has made little attempt to reduce the budget deficit.  - Incorrect. Need some relation between deficit and currency.

(B) The budget deficit has not caused a slowdown in  economic growth .  - Incorrect. Tempting. Need some relation between deficit and currency.

(C) The value of the dollar declined several times in the year prior to the recent prediction of slower  economic growth .  - Incorrect. Need some relation between deficit and currency.

(D)   Before there was a large budget deficit  , predictions of slower economic growth frequently caused declines in the dollar’s value.  - Correct. Note the highlighted part. It implies that with NO deficit, "prediction caused the frequent decline of dollar value". So decreasing the deficit wont help to control the declining dollar value.

(E) When there is a large budget deficit, other events in addition to predictions of slower  economic growth  sometimes trigger declines in currency value.  - Incorrect. Need some relation between deficit and currency.

Answer: (D).

cr7anika · Answer

The recent decline in the value of the dollar was triggered by a prediction of slower economic growth in the coming year. But that prediction would not have adversely affected the dollar had it not been for the government’s huge budget deficit, which must therefore be decreased to prevent future currency declines 
 
Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion about how to prevent future currency declines?

The argument is -  Reduced budget deficit will prevent currency fall in the future . We are asked to weaken the argument.

(A) The government has made little attempt to reduce the budget deficit.

This does not help me in weakening the bold part above. It does not comment on how reduced budget deficit will help prevent currency fall/ not

(B) The budget deficit has not caused a slowdown in economic growth.

The argument does not rely on the fact that budget deficit has caused economic growth hence the currency fall. The argument clearly says budget deficit has made it worse. If the argument had instead stated that slowing economic growth is caused by budget deficit, this answer could have been considered. Economics graduate might find this answer tempting because of their external knowledge.

(C) The value of the dollar declined several times in the year prior to the recent prediction of slower economic growth.

This also does not impact my argument that reduced budged deficit will prevent currency fall in the future. The decline could have been because of several other reason or similar reasons, we do not know.

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

The argument relies on the premise that just predictions slow economic growth is not enough to adversely impact the currency. It is it coupled with huge budget deficit that causes an issue. This answer directly attacks the premise of the argument and hence weakens the conclusion.

(E) When there is a large budget deficit, other events in addition to predictions of slower economic growth sometimes trigger declines in currency value.

This is like a fact being stated. Does not seem to be connected to the argument.

dreamofbest2020 · Answer

Hi  VeritasKarishma   GMATNinja

Could you please explain why option D is correct and option B is incorrect?

rebecca501 · Answer

Premise: The prediction of an economic slowdown led to a decline in the value of the dollar. However, had it not been for the government's huge budget deficit, the dollar would not have been affected.

Conclusion: In order to prevent future dollar declines, the huge deficit must be decreased.

The author thinks that the huge budget deficit and not the prediction of the economic slowdown has led to the decline in the dollar. We need to find an answer that weakens the conclusion that the author is making - i.e. an answer that will prove that the decline in the dollar value has got nothing to do with the budget deficit.

Only answer choice D points to that. B is incorrect because nowhere in the argument does it suggest that the budget deficit caused a slowdown in the economic growth. This answer choice doesn't weaken the conclusion that the author is making - i.e. reducing the huge deficits will prevent future dollar declines.

GMATNinja · Answer

Thanks  rebecca501 ! That's exactly right... the author says that the prediction of economic growth "would  not  have adversely affected the dollar had it not been for the government’s huge budget deficit". Choice (D) tells us that such predictions actually HAVE adversely affected the dollar, even when there was no huge budget deficit. So (D) directly weakens the argument.

As for (B), the author does not claim that the budget deficit  caused  the slowdown in economic growth. Instead, the author claims that both 1) a prediction of an economic slowdown and 2) a huge budget deficit will, together, adversely affect the dollar. Choice (B) does not impact that reasoning, so (D) is the best option.

rish2708 · Answer

Would like to add to all the explanations for option B:

I had an earlier doubt that if we take negated B then it might   strengthen   the argument. But it's not so. Because if negation strengthens then normally the option would weaken the argument. 
The point I was missing was, Actually the conclusion is budget deficit decrease is NECESSARY for preventing declining of dollar value.

Had option B said that   huge Budget deficit  caused economic slowdown, still this option could not justify why the low budget deficit would be NECESSARY for maintaining or increasing dollar value.

Even if we create a causal chain   Decreasing budget deficit (NECESSARY) -> Reduced risk of Economic slowdown -> Prevention of lowering of dollar value  , we can't establish that Decreasing Budget deficit is NECESSARY for the decrease of dollar value.

This is because of a simple point:
A ( Decreasing budget deficit) -> Reducing risk of Eco slowdown
B ( Low Unemp/ Other case) -> Reducing risk of Eco slowdown
So the Reducing risk of Eco slowdown might still exist and this does not weaken/strengthen the above bolded causal chain ( which I made taking the argument and negated option B together)

This is because we still do not know that Decreasing budget deficit is NECESSARY for the decrease in dollar value or not.

Regards,
Rishav

NischalP · Answer

I won't go with D for the reason that : Option D states the previous economic slowdown was caused by declined currency prediction. But it does not rule out the factor that maybe this year it "did" cause the slowdown. So no assumption can be cleared out from this option

My choice would be "C"

My choice would be "C"

KaranB1 · Answer

VeritasKarishma   GMATNinja   ChiranjeevSingh

Is option D not hurting the premise of the argument which says "prediction would not have adversely affected the dollar had it not been for the government’s huge budget deficit".

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

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

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