The proposed cutbacks in the Federal Food Assistance Program for Child

Question

The proposed cutbacks in the Federal Food Assistance Program for Children are both shortsighted and financially self-defeating. The 24 percent reduction may well save taxpayers some money in the short run, but it will eventually prove disastrous. What supporters of the cuts have not recognized is that this program has been shown to reduce greatly the occurrence of infant malnutrition, a condition that usually results in long-term medical problems that demand expensive medical attention when the child reaches adulthood.

The argument above depends on which of the following assumptions?

A) It is the taxpayer who will incur the costs of malnourished children's future medical care.
 B) If the proposed cutbacks are not enacted, then an increase in the cost of medical attention will not occur.
 C) The taxpayers who support the cutbacks prefer saving money in the short run to saving it in the long run.
 D) Those who support the proposed cutbacks have mistakenly placed economics above human needs.
 E) A fully-funded Food Assistance Program for Children would eliminate infant malnutrition.

AndrewN · Accepted Answer

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

redskull1 · Answer

It is between A and B.

B is too strongly worded.Hence it is A.

Posted from my mobile device

bridgetnamugga · Answer

The proposed cutbacks in the Federal Food Assistance Program for Children are both shortsighted and financially self-defeating. The 24 percent reduction may well save taxpayers some money in the short run, but it will eventually prove disastrous. What supporters of the cuts have not recognized is that this program has been shown to reduce greatly the occurrence of infant malnutrition, a condition that usually results in long-term medical problems that demand expensive medical attention when the child reaches adulthood.

The argument above depends on which of the following assumptions?

A) It is the taxpayer who will incur the costs of malnourished children's future medical care.
 B) If the proposed cutbacks are not enacted, then an increase in the cost of medical attention will not occur.
 C) The taxpayers who support the cutbacks prefer saving money in the short run to saving it in the long run.
 D) Those who support the proposed cutbacks have mistakenly placed economics above human needs.
 E) A fully-funded Food Assistance Program for Children would eliminate infant malnutrition. PRETHINK : Look for an answer choice which after negating weakens the conclusion "therefore shortsighted and finanacially self defeating"

Negating the answer choices
A.It is not the taxpayer who will incur the costs of malnourished children s future medical care. WEAKEN hence answer choice
B.If the proposed cutbacks are enacted then a decrease in the cost will occur. this

yash312 · Answer

Imo A

Prethink : conclusion depends on that taxpayer will be paying medical expense of children , hence they will suffer more because of high cost of medical expense

B: is wrong 
It does not take into account the effects on taxpayer of the effect of conclusion

Posted from my mobile device

SWAT09 · Answer

I would like to go with E
E says Fully funded program would eliminate malnutrition. If we negate - fully funded program would not eliminate malnutrition program then the whole argument of the author fails. There would be no reason for the author to talk against the cutbacks.

Shef08 · Answer

@e-gmat, please can you explain why A and not C?

rahaman26 · Answer

"this program has been shown to  reduce  greatly the occurrence of infant malnutrition"

The author has already mentioned that the program has reduced the malnutrition issue. It does not necessarily have to eliminate the problem.

Rashed12 · Answer

Why B and E are incorrect? Would anyone explain this elaborately?

azamatboden · Answer

Rashed12 , I believe B is wrong because there are lots of factors that can affect the cost in the future so we might not be able to say whether that is up to the policy. The answer is very tempting though. I myself went for it as well.

& regarding E - it is very strongly worded. It can't eliminate malnutrition fully. Even though it doesn't mention the word 'fully', the context implies so.

Krishchamp · Answer

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

NarayanaGupta007 · Answer

strongly worded ---what a reason you have given ..awesome
NO superlative is used in option then how to conclude its strongly worded.

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 cutbacks in the Federal Food Assistance Program for Child

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 cutbacks in the Federal Food Assistance Program for Child

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