Professor A: We must make a strong moral statement against Country X’s

Question

Professor A: We must make a strong moral statement against Country X’s policies. Only total divestment—the sale of all stock in companies that have factories or business offices in X—can do this. Therefore, the university should divest totally.

Professor B: Our aim should be to encourage X to change its policies. Partial divestment is the best way to achieve this aim. Therefore, the university should sell its stock only in companies that either sell goods to X’s government, or do the majority of their business in X, or treat their workers in X unfairly.

Professor A’s and Professor B’s arguments differ in which of the following ways?

(A) They state the same goal but propose different ways of achieving it.
(B) They state different goals but propose the same way of achieving them.
(C) They state different goals and propose different ways of achieving them.
(D) They disagree about whether the university should sell any stock at all.
(E) They disagree about whether X’s policies are objectionable.

Taulark1 · Accepted Answer

Professor A  - wants to go against the country's Policies . His goal is to go against it and in no way have to exactly change it.

For example - If my friend wants to but a chocolate of 40 $ with my money. But i don't want to buy it because its expensive - means i am against his policy of buying the chocolate, not that i want to change his mind (policy) of buying of the chocolate ( it specifically means i myself don't want to buy the chocolate but he still wants to)

Professor B  - wants to actually make an effort to let country X change its policies. His goal is to make the country change its policies ( NOTE :  he doesn't mentions if he's actually against it in any sort of way, he just wants to ensure that they change their policies)

Again referring back to my example , if i was professor B , then i would actually make my friend change his mind of buying the chocolate by let's say convincing him to not buy the chocolate ( NOTE :   in no way am i against his buying, but i want to convince him to not buy the chocolate)

Next , coming to the ways of how they achieve their goals - its clearly different ways - Partial divestment is not equal to Total divestment .

Hence  option C  is the correct answer

PRamesh2008 · Answer

Professor A: We must make a strong moral statement against Country X’s policies. Only total divestment—the sale of all stock in companies that have factories or business offices in X—can do this. Therefore, the university should divest totally.

Professor B: Our aim should be to encourage X to change its policies. Partial divestment is the best way to achieve this aim. Therefore, the university should sell its stock only in companies that either sell goods to X’s government, or do the majority of their business in X, or treat their workers in X unfairly.

Professor A’s and Professor B’s arguments differ in which of the following ways?

(A) They state the same goal but propose different ways of achieving it.
(B) They state different goals but propose the same way of achieving them.
(C) They state different goals and propose different ways of achieving them.
(D) They disagree about whether the university should sell any stock at all.
(E) They disagree about whether X’s policies are objectionable.

On analysis of the Goal and Means in the statements of professors A and B , the following is evident :-

Goal (by A) : Country X's policies found unfavourable; hence total rejection in global arena.. is the AIM.
Means (for A) : Complete divestment of stocks in companies with busineses located in X.

Goal (by B) : Persuade X to chamge its policies to align with desired objectives (however, specifically not highlighted in the stimulus)
Means (for B) : Partial divestment of stocks in businesses selling goods to X / showing unfair treatment to workers.

Clearly, it highlights DIFFERENT GOALS and DIFFERENT MEANS to achieve respective goals.. Hence, Option C is the CORRECT answer.

Hope it helps...

Bunuel · Answer

TWIN QUESTION: https://gmatclub.com/forum/professor-a- ... 13002.html

OhMy · Answer

I find it hard to differentiate among  A) B)  and  C) .
I mean, being really really literal, the goals and respective methods of the two professors are different, okay.
But both more or less state that X should change its policies. Why else would someone like Professor A say that there has to be a strong moral statement with radical measures?
Likewise, the two methods of the two professors are both divestion. One partially and one full divestion. Are the methods really that different?
So A) and B) are also pretty close answers.

From my perspective one could argue a lot about the questions' OA. Or do i have a fundamental flaw in my reasoning/thinking?

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.

Professor A: We must make a strong moral statement against Country X’s

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

Professor A: We must make a strong moral statement against Country X’s

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