V08-13

Question

Hiberian Opposition Party Spokesman: Our National Textile board is running at loss; The cost of maintaining a wide network of inspection offices and officials are disproportionate to the benefits accrued since hardly only 1% of the consignments are getting rejected overall. Hence, if we cut down the size of the official expenditure on maintenance of such inspection operations, it will go a long way in sustaining the operations, yet maintaining Hiberian quality of exports and reputation.
 
Hiberian PMO Spokesman: This is a fallacious approach. The mere message that somebody is overseeing the affairs deters many potential fraudsters from exporting unfit goods and earning bad reputation. 
 
The PMO Spokesman responds to the Opposition Party Spokesman by

A. rebutting the argument of the spokesman of the opposition party while urging that the standards according to which the board inspects exported textiles should be raised.
B. evidencing that the Opposition stand has significantly overestimated the cost of maintaining the board.
C. criticizing the Opposition Party’s stand introducing into the issue irrelevant and non-economic factors.
D. bringing out into open a factor which the Opposition failed to consider. 
E. resorting to Ad hominem, i.e. attack one’s character rather than the argument per se.

souvik101990 · Answer

Official Solution:

Hiberian Opposition Party Spokesman: Our National Textile board is running at loss; The cost of maintaining a wide network of inspection offices and officials are disproportionate to the benefits accrued since hardly only 1% of the consignments are getting rejected overall. Hence, if we cut down the size of the official expenditure on maintenance of such inspection operations, it will go a long way in sustaining the operations, yet maintaining Hiberian quality of exports and reputation.
 
Hiberian PMO Spokesman: This is a fallacious approach. The mere message that somebody is overseeing the affairs deters many potential fraudsters from exporting unfit goods and earning bad reputation. 
 
The PMO Spokesman responds to the Opposition Party Spokesman by

A. rebutting the argument of the spokesman of the opposition party while urging that the standards according to which the board inspects exported textiles should be raised.
B. evidencing that the Opposition stand has significantly overestimated the cost of maintaining the board.
C. criticizing the Opposition Party’s stand introducing into the issue irrelevant and non-economic factors.
D. bringing out into open a factor which the Opposition failed to consider. 
E. resorting to Ad hominem, i.e. attack one’s character rather than the argument per se.

A. There is no mention of raising the standard - wrong
 
B. No evidences produced – wrong
 
C. No introduction of irrelevant issues by the PMO
 
D. This is the correct answer. The PMO points out deterrence factor to blunt opposition’s allegation.
 
E. No personal or individual attacks were made: wrong choice.

Answer: D

ravisarens · Answer

I think this is a  high-quality  question and the explanation isn't clear enough, please elaborate.

sayantanc2k · Answer

Please mention your doubt specifically, so that we may discuss it properly.

alainca · Answer

This item has some grammatical problems. For example, the singular subject "The cost" does not match the verb "are."

There are some typos as well, such as an extra period in "reputation. . Hiberian."

Has anyone reviewed this?

While taking a test like this, we are focused on precision. The questions need to be correctly worded, otherwise it throws us off. Thank you.

youggotthis95 · Answer

sayantanc2k

Option D says a factor was brought out in the open that was not mentioned before. But that factor is "people overseeing the affairs" and that has been mentioned in the argument presented by Opposition as well. So the explanation is not clear for me.

Ayush697 · Answer

I think this is a  poor-quality  question and I don't agree with the explanation.

Rance14 · Answer

A. rebutting the argument of the spokesman of the opposition party while urging that the standards according to which the board inspects exported textiles should be raised. -   The PMO Spokesman did not rebut the Opposition Party Spokesman anywhere, also, he never mentioned that the current standards were not adequate or should be raised.      Incorrect.

B. evidencing that the Opposition stand has significantly overestimated the cost of maintaining the board.   - Again PMO never said that the opposition was overestimating the costs of maintaining the board.      Incorrect.

C. criticizing the Opposition Party’s stand introducing into the issue irrelevant and non-economic factors.   - Firstly the opposition spoke about cutting expenditures by reducing inspection official's manpower, hence, the factors were economic, not non-economic. And nowhere did the PMO guy criticize the opposition on any form of non-economic factors.      Incorrect.

D. bringing out into open a factor which the Opposition failed to consider. -   Yes, the PMO put forward a factor that the opposition did not consider. Maybe the reason why their reject rate was so low i.e. 1% is because of they have so many inspection officials that make the fraudsters question themselves twice before committing any fraud. In short, the high number of inspection officials is keeping the reject rate so low at 1% hence, cutting down on them would ultimately make things worse.      Correct.

E. resorting to Ad hominem, i.e. attack one’s character rather than the argument per see.   - Again nowhere did the PMO guy attack the opposition guy's character.      Incorrect.

learningdevdip · Answer

I think this is a  high-quality  question and I agree with explanation.

V08-13

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