Concerned citizen: The mayor, an outspoken critic of the proposed rest

Question

Concerned citizen: The mayor, an outspoken critic of the proposed restoration of city hall, is right when he notes that the building is outdated, but that the restoration would be expensive at a time when the budget is already tight. We cannot afford such a luxury item in this time of financial restraint, he says. However, I respectfully disagree. The building provides the last remaining link to the days of the city’s founding, and preserving a sense of municipal history is crucial to maintaining respect for our city government and its authority. So to the question, “Can we really afford to?” I can only respond, “Can we afford not to?”

Which one of the following most accurately characterizes a flaw in the concerned citizen’s argument?

(A) The argument is solely an emotional appeal to history.

(B) The argument ambiguously uses the word “afford.”

(C) The argument inappropriately appeals to the authority of the mayor.

(D) The argument incorrectly presumes that the restoration would be expensive.

(E) The argument inappropriately relies on the emotional connotations of words such as “outdated” and “luxury.”

tsatomic · Accepted Answer

Answer is B. Let's break it down. In simple words the argument goes:
 Mayor: We cannot afford the restoration of the city hall,
concerned Citizen: Preserving it is needed to maintain respect for the gov, so can we afford not to restore?

(A) The argument is solely an emotional appeal to history.
 Incorrect. Very tricky. It's either this or B. In general, always be careful of extreme language in GMAT. Here he uses "solely" which is extreme. The citizen also talks about maintaining respect for the government and its authority so it's not solely an emotional appeal.

(B) The argument ambiguously uses the word “afford.”
 Correct. The line ' So to the question, “Can we really afford to?” I can only respond, “Can we afford not to?” ' shows that the citizen tries to use the word in a way that's different from how the mayor used it.

(C) The argument inappropriately appeals to the authority of the mayor.
 Incorrect. There is no appeal to any authority.

(D) The argument incorrectly presumes that the restoration would be expensive.
 Incorrect. A presumption that the restoration would be expensive is not incorrect. Both sides agree that restoration is expensive. The argument is more about whether they should go for it or not.
 
(E) The argument inappropriately relies on the emotional connotations of words such as “outdated” and “luxury.”
 Incorrect. It does not even rely on those words at all.

GmatKnightTutor · Answer

This one might be a bit cruel, but the passage does give a very clear reason why the answer is correct. Let's get a hold on things first, however. The argument says that some mayor does not want to restore city hall; that he is saying the building is outdated, would cost too much to do when the budget is already tight. The CZ says however that we need this building due to its historical legacy to the founding and that preserving that sense helps 1) maintain respect for CG and 2) its authority.

Concerned citizen: The mayor, an outspoken critic of the proposed restoration of city hall, is right when he notes that the building is outdated, but that the restoration would be expensive at a time when the budget is already tight. We cannot afford such a luxury item in this time of financial restraint, he says. However, I respectfully disagree. The building provides the last remaining link to the days of the city’s founding, and preserving a sense of municipal history is crucial to maintaining respect for our city government and its authority. So to the question, “Can we really afford to?” I can only respond, “Can we afford not to?”

Which one of the following most accurately characterizes a flaw in the concerned citizen’s argument?

(A) The argument is solely an emotional appeal to history.
The CZ has given 2 reasons. One is an appeal to history BUT there is also a clear argument being put forth that the restoration of the building will help maintain respect and authority towards the CG as well.

(B) The argument ambiguously uses the word “afford.”
I don't think the argument is using the word AFFORD ambiguously. It's a play on words. It's the kind of thing you might hear someone write in an article as a response. But the argument does CHANGE how the word AFFORD is being used. The mayor uses it in the simple calculation sense in terms of budget. The CZ uses it in a more abstract sense. As in how can we afford not to do this. Sigh.

(C) The argument inappropriately appeals to the authority of the mayor.
Nope, nothing about this is a flaw here or, I daresay, even mentioned in the argument. The authority of the CZ is only mentioned.

(D) The argument incorrectly presumes that the restoration would be expensive.
Is this a flaw in the response of the CZ? Out.

(E) The argument inappropriately relies on the emotional connotations of words such as “outdated” and “luxury.”
Nope, nothing mentioned about the words outdated or luxury in this way in the response of the CZ. If the Mayor had relied on such a method, and the CZ criticized that method, THEN we might be able to consider this.

gmatknight(dot)com - Tutoring and free quick tips

yashikaaggarwal · Answer

(A) The argument is solely an emotional appeal to history.
( The counter dialogue sounds emotional, so could be the answer)

(B) The argument ambiguously uses the word “afford.”( Afford does have more than one meaning which is justifiable)

(C) The argument inappropriately appeals to the authority of the mayor. ( It's given that the citizen respectfully contradicts mayor statement)

(D) The argument incorrectly presumes that the restoration would be expensive.(Citizen is not saying anything about expenses)

(E) The argument inappropriately relies on the emotional connotations of words such as “outdated” and “luxury.” ( it's mayor's speech not citizen's)

A seems logical explanation.

Posted from my mobile device

GDT · Answer

The mayor opposes the restoration because he feels that it will be very expensive and that it will be difficult to accommodate such a 'luxury" expense when budget is already tight
The concerned citizen responds to the mayor's objection by saying that this expenditure is essential to preserve a building of historical significance

The flaw in the argument is that the citizen doesn't address the economic concern of the mayor and resorts to emotional reasons to restore the building

(A) The argument is solely an emotional appeal to history.   Correct.

(B) The argument ambiguously uses the word “afford.”  Incorrect

(C) The argument inappropriately appeals to the authority of the mayor.  Incorrect

(D) The argument incorrectly presumes that the restoration would be expensive.  Incorrect

(E) The argument inappropriately relies on the emotional connotations of words such as “outdated” and “luxury.”  Incorrect

carouselambra · Answer

So the main fight is between A and B.

Option A: The argument is solely an emotional appeal to history.
It it NOT just an emotional appeal to history. The citizen clearly equates the respect for CG to preservation of municipal history - which is wrong since the Mayor clearly states that the budget is tight. 
Overall, this option is a good contender but does not cover both the aspects of the argument,i.e. respect for CG along with the emotional appeal.

Option B: As highlighted earlier, you can probably say that the word "afford" has been used in a different way. First afford refers to the financial aspect of the argument whereas the second one broadly tries to question the argument. Example : "Can we really afford to lose the sheen of our municipal history inspite of all the financial constraints?"
afford(financial) != afford(emotional)
The concerned citizen clearly fails to differentiate b/w the above, hence the usage of afford is ambiguous.

meenuchahak · Answer

So, here's my doubt with this question. The crux of the argument appears to be "...preserving...history is crucial to maintaining respect for...government...". The other line that says "...Can we afford not to?.." appears to be providing conclusion for the previous argument with some dramatic effect coming from usage of homonyms. In other words, from the citizen's POV, preserving history is necessary to maintain respect for the government and hence we can't afford not to restore the building. Looking at answer choices with this interpretation..

(A) The argument is solely an emotional appeal to history.
 Correct. Without more context, maintaining respect for the government is an emotional need because no consequences of losing respect for government are mentioned or implied. So the argument is putting forth an emotional consequence of not being able to preserve history. The conclusion that we can't afford not to restore the building, is trying to prevent an emotional consequence of not preserving history and hence is an emotional appeal to history.

(B) The argument ambiguously uses the word “afford.”
 Incorrect. Like you've already pointed out, the 2 usages of the word "afford" are different and not necessarily ambiguous. And anyway, "Can we afford not to?"   is conclusion of the argument, and finding a flaw in how a conclusion is stated is not equivalent to a flaw in how that conclusion follows from the premise.

Masterclass_Space · Answer

(A) The argument is solely an emotional appeal to history. (incorrect)
If it is emotional then we should not afford it. If this is the case, it weakens the conclusion instead of raising questions against reasoning.
(B) The argument ambiguously uses the word “afford.” (correct answer)
The flaw in reasoning is a connection between remaining link and respect with afford. The author has concluded that because building reminds the day of foundation and creates a sense of respect, therefore, we should afford it. Affordability was linked with a sense of foundation and respect that is ambiguous.
(C) The argument inappropriately appeals to the authority of the mayor. (incorrect)
Because it inappropriately appeals to the authority hence we should not accept it if it is the case again it weakens the conclusion.
(D) The argument incorrectly presumes that the restoration would be expensive. (incorrect)
Expense is related to background information hence out of scope
(E) The argument inappropriately relies on the emotional connotations of words such as “outdated” and “luxury.” (Incorrect)
Too specific as it discusses the meaning of the words.

samarpan.g28 · Answer

It is either A or B. But A is too extreme because it uses the word 'solely'. Rather in B, the concerned citizen ambiguously questions the reliability of the mayor's decision on the word 'afford' therefore (B) is correct.

TheVDR · Answer

I've gone through this question multiple times now and I still wonder where is the ambiguity in the usage of the word "afford". It is used with two different references and meanings, both of which are clearly unambiguous. Ambiguity should arise when things are either not clear or out of context, but I still don't see any ambiguity here.

Elevated_person · Answer

Bunuel   Sajjad1994  could you please explain how to approach this question?

Azakura16 · Answer

According to CC, the mayor doesn’t want to proceed with a proposed restoration of city hall, because though the building is outdated, the restoration would be expensive and the city’s budget is already tight. While the mayor doesn’t think the city can afford to update the building, CC thinks the city can’t afford to not update city hall because it’s the last remaining link to the city’s founding, and therefore historically significant and important for preserving respect for the city and its authority.
We’re looking for a flaw in the argument.

A. I wouldn’t say it’s solely an emotional appeal to history, as the CC does raise the issue of institutional respect and historical importance. Those things could very well be foundational to preventing riots in the streets. I don’t know. I don’t live in this city. 
B. This is a problem with CC’s point. I understand that they mean that the city can’t societally afford to not restore city hall, due to the issues they listed. However, if the mayor is saying that the city literally doesn’t have the money available to do the restoration, it doesn’t matter how important it is at this time. If I desperately needed a private island, no matter the reason, it’s simply not in my budget right now.
C. The argument doesn’t actually appeal to the mayor, so this is irrelevant.
D. If the mayor says that the restoration would be expensive, we have to assume it’s true. 
E. The CCs argument doesn’t rely on either of these words.

Best choice is B.

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.

Concerned citizen: The mayor, an outspoken critic of the proposed rest

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

Concerned citizen: The mayor, an outspoken critic of the proposed rest

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