Area Tenant: Economist Patrick Hutber is most famous for his suggestio

Question

Area Tenant : Economist Patrick Hutber is most famous for his suggestion that any public expression of improvement is suspect on the grounds that improvement is only touted when it can serve to conceal some form of deterioration. Hutber would’ve been grimly satisfied by the recent performance of our neighborhood representative, who responded to the news that our neighborhood was subject to more vigorous ticketing than any other neighborhood in the county by celebrating the “improvements” two new bike lanes had contributed to our quality of life.

Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen the tenant’s argument?

(A) The ticketing to which the neighborhood was subject over the past twelve months is unprecedented in the neighborhood’s history.

(B) The neighborhood representative has privately remarked that the bike lanes are unimpressive and unlikely to be frequented by the neighborhood’s residents.

(C) Despite the unconscionable and widespread ticketing to which it is subject, the neighborhood is currently one of the most desirable in the city.

(D) The neighborhood’s quality of life, as measured by accurate and respected surveys of local residents, has been stagnant for well over a decade.

(E) The tenant is the most politically informed of the neighborhood’s residents.

gmatbull · Accepted Answer

OA is  A  as explained below

OE:
Begin this difficult Strengthen question by identifying the conclusion: in this case, that Hutber would’ve considered 
the neighborhood rep’s behavior an example of someone touting ‘improvement’ in order to conceal evidence of 
deterioration. The ‘improvement’ here is clearly the bike lanes, but the deterioration is less clear: the tenant is upset
about the ticketing, but we have no evidence in the original stimulus that that ticketing is a deterioration – if the 
ticketing has always been this bad, then things in the neighborhood are awful, but they haven’t been deteriorating. 
Since we need some premise to link the ticketing to deteriorating conditions in the neighborhood, (A) is our only choice.
Note the trap inherent in the most popular incorrect choice (D) - the fact that the quality of life is "stagnant" means 
that it hasn't deteriorated as is part of the conclusion.

shasadou · Answer

The passage plays around the following  idea:  if someone tries to speak about any kind of improvements - this chap most likely wants to conceal some kind of deterioration, that things got worse in fact.

Example:  an official boasts that the city has put into operation a new kindergarden for 100 children, but he does not mention that 5 old kindergardens have been destroyed that used to give day care to 1000 children. So this false to the core official just speaks about some "improvement" to conceal degradation.

Getting engaged with the stimuli:  we understand that 2 new bike lanes were introduced to the community, ok, it is a good thing to have separate bike lanes. then we see there is some ticketing system that should work closely with the bike lanes, i am not sure what it is for. may be residents have to pay for the right to use bike lanes. ok. sounds reasonable. one should pay for goodies.

but why the tenant strongly beleives the neighborhood representative is distorting facts? i.e. tries to conceal degradation with so to say an "improvement"? he is unhappy with bike lanes? or with vigorous ticketing? So we need to find an answer which would prove that the tenant is right that there is some deterioration taking place and being concealed by nasty representative. the deterioration has to be on the side of bike lanes: they are not built to standards and only endanger citizens to road accidents, they made the situation worse for some reason and it would have been better without them etc. or on the side of ticketing. most likely here. because the tetnat emotionally mentions  vigorous  ticketing.

(A): The ticketing to which the neighborhood was subject over the past twelve months is unprecedented in the neighborhood’s history. this should be the answer by POE. the most relevant asnwer. the community might have a ticketing system before the 2 new lanes or might not have the one. but we know for sure that  vigorous  and  unprecedented  speak in a negative tone. so this means that ticketing system has worsened the situation  
 
(B): The neighborhood representative has privately remarked that the bike lanes are unimpressive and unlikely to be frequented by the neighborhood’s residents.  trap answer. even it is true and they are not impressive - THIS DOES NOT DETERIORATE THE SITUATION, they can be laid say outside the city in the hills where noone cares to bike - does this deteriorate situation for the community which has never had any bike lanes at all. no.

(C) Despite the unconscionable and widespread ticketing to which it is subject, the neighborhood is currently one of the most desirable in the city. it says ticketing is bad but people love the place just the same. there is no deterioration at all. it weakens

(D) The neighborhood’s quality of life, as measured by accurate and respected surveys of local residents, has been stagnant for well over a decade.  attack the surveys! i or anyone else can make a better survey and come to opposite results

(E) The tenant is the most politically informed of the neighborhood’s residents.  how does this help to reveal deterioration witht he bike lane system?

shanmugamgsn · Answer

I chose B... Not too sure!!!

Please correct me if im wrong

Aristocrat · Answer

+ 1 B

But still confuse with argument construction.
Got answer by elimination

adityag85 · Answer

---
Conclusion: Public exp. of improvement is done to conceal some form of deterioration. (Per Hutber)
Premise: One of neighborhood has improved its bike lanes, and states that 'celebrations' of the improvements has lead to more ticketing.

Task: Need additional evidence that states what the deterioration is, and that rep. is trying to coceal.

: Provides evidence that 'ticketing' has been rampant over last 12 months. Looks good, this might as well be what the rep. is trying to conceal.
 : No bearing on the conclusion.
 : Whether or not the neighborhood is desirable is out of scope of the argument.
 : The QoLife has always been the same for over a decade -> No improvement / decline. Had QoL declined this option would have been a contender.
 : No bearing on coclusion

IMO, A wins.

Vineetk · Answer

P1- PH suggests that any public expression of improvement implies that it is done to hide a deterioration.

P2- NR responded to news (news stating that the neighborhood received vigorous ticketing) by saying: 2 new bike lanes added quality of life.

So, to strengthen, we need to show that there is some form of deterioration involved with new bike lanes behind this public expression of improvement provided by NR. Among the choices B does this job.

plaverbach · Answer

I don't get it, any one can try an other explanation?

Maybe a meaning problem... What is ticketing? The dictionary did not help!

rajendra00 · Answer

can anyone explain this question in detailed way?

Kelzie01 · Answer

Yeah, I still like B. We're told that any public expression of improvement is not to be trusted because it is done to cover up a deterioration. B confirms a public expression of improvement is not sincere. While A does strengthen the argument that there was a deterioration, that does not mean that expression of improvement was done to cover up the deterioration.

Ekland · Answer

THE TENANT ARGUMENT IS DRAWING PARALLEL WITH HUTBER'S PRIPOSITION
AND THE IMPROVEMENT-DETERIORATION PARALLEL IN TENANTS POINT IS BIKEWAY-TAX RESPECTIVELY. SO THE RIGHT OPTION MUST BUTRESS THAT THE TAX(TICKETING) IS ONE H*LL OF A DETERIORATION SINCE THE "IMPROVEMENT" IS ALREADY CLEARLY THE BIKEWAY TOUTED PUBLICLY BY THE NEIGHBORHOOD REP.

AMONG THE OPTIONS ONLY A DID IT.
ONE NEEDS TO PRETHINK ANY 700LEVEL QUESTION TO EVEN STAND A CHANCE.
CR PRETHINKING IS NOT NEGOTIABLE.
MY BRAIN ISN'T DOING IT AUTOMATICALLY, THAT'S WHY I'M PRACTICING IT.

Posted from my mobile device

davedekoos · Answer

Here we have a STRENGTHEN question. What is it we are looking to strengthen? The tenants's argument. What is the tenant's argument?

"Hutber would’ve been grimly satisfied by the recent performance of our neighborhood representative, who responded 
to the news that our neighborhood was subject to more vigorous ticketing than any other neighborhood in the county 
by celebrating the “improvements” two new bike lanes had contributed to our quality of life."
 
Rephrased, he's saying that in the current situation, the Neighborhood Representative is trying to cover up some deterioration by touting the improvements of the bike lanes. It is also suggested that the deterioration has to do with the ticketing, since the Neighborhood Representative responded to questions about the ticketing by celebrating the improvements to the bike lanes.

Ok, so what are we looking for in the answer choices? We are looking for something that will strengthen the argument. That is, something that will show that there is some deterioration of the neighborhood's quality of life.

*Note: "Ticketing" refers to police or public security issuing tickets to citizens for violations of bylaws (speeding, illegal parking, j-walking, etc.)

Alright, let's look at the answer choices and see if we find what we're looking for.

A: The ticketing to which the neighborhood was subject over the past twelve months is unprecedented in the 
neighborhood’s history.   This suggests that the ticketing has increased in the past 12 months, hence the quality of life has deteriorated. Possible answer!

B: The neighborhood representative has privately remarked that the bike lanes are unimpressive and unlikely to be 
frequented by the neighborhood’s residents.  Doesn't show any deterioration in the quality of life for the residents. Reject.

C: Despite the unconscionable and widespread ticketing to which it is subject, the neighborhood is currently one of the 
most desirable in the city.  Doesn't speak to deterioration of the quality of life. Suggests the opposite. Reject.

D: The neighborhood’s quality of life, as measured by accurate and respected surveys of local residents, has been 
stagnant for well over a decade.  Indicates that there is no improvement or deterioration in the quality of life. Stagnant = no change. Reject.

E: The tenant is the most politically informed of the neighborhood’s residents.  No bearing on the deterioration of the quality of life of the residents. Reject.

So A is the only possible answer here. It indicates a clear deterioration of the quality of life of the residents (nobody likes more ticketing), and strengthens the tenant's argument that the Neighborhood Representative was trying to conceal the deterioration by celebrating the improvement of the bike lanes.

OreoShake · Answer

whats confusing is that unprecedented in option A means 'never happened before'. how does not happening before in any way indicate that the ticketing is indeed poor for the neighbourhood?

Lets it had happened a 50 years back - so what?. lets say it had never happened before - so what?

If only gmac could create more tests and publish more questions.

sameerkamath21 · Answer

Is the author basically trying to draw a parallel with what Hutber said and are in what way does (A) strengthen that reasoning? Please explain.

nightblade354 · Answer

Hi  sameerkamath21 ,

Let's evaluate the argument:

Area Tenant: Economist Patrick Hutber is most famous for his suggestion that  any public expression of improvement 
is suspect on the grounds that improvement is only touted when it can serve to conceal some form of deterioration . 
 Hutber would’ve been grimly satisfied  by the recent performance of our neighborhood representative, who responded 
to the news that our neighborhood was subject to more vigorous ticketing than any other neighborhood in the county 
by celebrating the “improvements” two new bike lanes had contributed to our quality of life.

Argument: Hubert's point is made because of our new bike rack. What is that point? Something new means a loss of something, or a 'deterioration' of something. In this case, we are looking for a sacrifice because of the new bike racks.

Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen the tenant’s argument?

A: The ticketing to which the neighborhood was subject over the past twelve months is unprecedented in the 
neighborhood’s history. --  New bike rack = more vigorous ticketing; this is a sacrifice! 
B: The neighborhood representative has privately remarked that the bike lanes are unimpressive and unlikely to be 
frequented by the neighborhood’s residents. --  This runs counter to Hubert's argument. If the bike rack is not perceived as a benefit, then there should be no 'deterioration' or cost. 
C: Despite the unconscionable and widespread ticketing to which it is subject, the neighborhood is currently one of the 
most desirable in the city. --  We do not care about how nice the neighborhood is. 
D: The neighborhood’s quality of life, as measured by accurate and respected surveys of local residents, has been 
stagnant for well over a decade. --  We're not trying to measure quality of life, unless there is a cost involved.  
E: The tenant is the most politically informed of the neighborhood’s residents. --  Out of Scope

Does this help?

amanrsingh · Answer

VeritasKarishma ,  GMATNinja ,

can you please help me in understanding how A is the right answer, since we have to find to some deterioration, which the neighbor hood representative is trying to conceal by showing the improvement, but option A no where says that there was ever any deterioration. and according to Patrick If one talks improvement then he sure is trying to conceal some form of deterioration.

churuand · Answer

Oh thank you so much for your explanation. Although I marked this choice right through POE, I still do not get what the author is trying to convey through the last sentence. However, you rephrased it perfectly, thank you.

sssanskaar · Answer

I recently encountered this question in Veritas mocks and was simply stumped by it because I had the exact same doubts that you have mentioned above. I guess the catch in this question is to match "deterioration" with "unprecedented in the last 12 months". If you give a hard look at this, you will understand that people were not facing this issue 12 months back (because the issue has been mentioned as "unprecedented"). So the conditions actually deteriorated. Needless to say, I marked this option wrong in real-time but now I can see why option A is the right answer.

VerbalBot · Answer

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.

Area Tenant: Economist Patrick Hutber is most famous for his suggestio

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

Area Tenant: Economist Patrick Hutber is most famous for his suggestio

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