No resident of Country X should consider the loss of the

Question

No resident of Country X should consider the loss of the traditional tribal structure to be a tragedy. When tribal traditions dominated the culture of Country X, the economy was extremely depressed. However, since the loss of the tribal tradition, Country X has experienced the fastest growth of any economy on the continent. Per capita income has increased more than twentyfold, the trade deficit has become a trade surplus, and the unemployment rate is at an all-time low.

Which of the following questions, if answered, would be most helpful in evaluating the validity of the argument above?

(A) How long did tribal structures in Country X exist before they were lost?
 (B) Is the tribal structure the only part of traditional culture that Country X has lost?
 (C) Are there any other countries with similar tribal structures that have also experienced recent economic growth?
 (D) What percentage of residents in Country X considers the loss of traditional tribal structures to be a tragedy?
 (E) Are there any sectors other than high technology that have experienced an increase in jobs?

andysimple · Answer

So the structure of the argument is : Loss of tradition => economic growth => no one should be sad.
To evaluate this argument we should see whether there are any other causes that lead to the conclusion. So choice B is correct.
A, C, D are irrelevant.
E, if true, cannot evaluate the argument.

amit2k9 · Answer

PS: Please refrain from passing judgement over the question shared.We are here for collective understanding and fruitful discussions. People from the particular organization might take into notice activities like this,leading to unintended problem for the forum. We are sure you don't intend such thing. Its a simple request, though.

Thank you beforehand.

IanStewart · Answer

Considering that people pay quite a lot of money for GMAT practice material, I think it's perfectly appropriate to hold that material to a high standard, and to point out flawed questions so test takers know which resources are worthwhile and which are suspect. I don't see any reason to be concerned about offending the author of the material.

That said, I don't understand what in particular has prompted this string of threads all with inflammatory titles about the 'stupidity' of these questions. If you think the questions are 'stupid' you could at least explain why. I don't particularly like the questions posted either, but at least in the case of the question above, there are no logical issues with the question or OA; the question is simply testing the 'post hoc ergo propter hoc' fallacy (if Y happens after X does, it is not necessarily true that X caused Y to happen), so we're looking for an answer choice which discusses potential alternate causes. What I don't like about the question is its setup, which doesn't make much sense to me; I don't see how a country could lose its 'tribal tradition' (whatever that means) from one day to the next.

ramannanda9 · Answer

B it is,

No resident of Country X should consider the loss of the traditional tribal structure to be a tragedy. When tribal traditions dominated the culture of Country X, the economy was extremely depressed. However, since the loss of the tribal tradition, Country X has experienced the fastest growth of any economy on the continent. Per capita income has increased more than twentyfold, the trade deficit has become a trade surplus, and the unemployment rate is at an all-time low.

Which of the following questions, if answered, would be most helpful in evaluating the validity of the argument above?  How can we be sure that loss of tribal traditions has caused this and thus not consider loss of tribal traditions as tragedy

(A) How long did tribal structures in Country X exist before they were lost?  Irrelevant 
 (B) Is the tribal structure the only part of traditional culture that Country X has lost? Relevant, if this is the only change then it validates the argument. On the contrary, if it is not the only reason you can make up many others. So this is useful in establishing the validity of the argument 
 (C) Are there any other countries with similar tribal structures that have also experienced recent economic growth? We do not need other examples, if they are there its good, if not there then also its okay 
 (D) What percentage of residents in Country X considers the loss of traditional tribal structures to be a tragedy? the author says no resident, so percentages here don't come into the picture 
 (E) Are there any sectors other than high technology that have experienced an increase in jobs?  High technology, seriously ! where did this come from ? Totally irrelevant.

WaterFlowsUp · Answer

New Gmat club project
Click here

Theory Articles on Evaluate the Argument
Manhattan GMAT
https://www.manhattangmat.com/blog/index ... e-problem/

Mangoosh gmat
https://magoosh.com/gmat/2013/gmat-tuesd ... -argument/

Vimeo videos

Quizlet
https://quizlet.com/25063381/gmat-cr-14- ... ash-cards/

Thursdays with Ron

jwang27 · Answer

This one is a bit tricky, and I admit that I picked C. After reviewing, it seems like B is a better answer.
It is rather obvious that A, D, and E are all irrelevant.

Answer choice B would help us evaluate if the economic change happened following only the loss of traditional tribal structure, or if other changes were made as well. Depending on the answer, it can either strengthen or weaken the argument. Good answer.

Answer choice C could also help us make a determination, but not the same one. I fell into this trap. Answer choice C would help us determine if the loss in tribal structure leading to economic growth can be generalized statement. However, the argument in this case is SPECIFIC to those people who reside in country X, not to ALL countries with tribal structure. Therefore, B is a better answer.

kinghyts · Answer

I don't like the option B) at all. 
We have to evaluate the argument "No resident of Country X should consider the loss of the traditional tribal structure to be a tragedy"

B says  Is the tribal structure the only part of traditional culture that Country X has lost  . The answer "Yes" should strengthen the argument, while a "No" should weaken.

1. Answer -> Yes
Let's say "tribal structure" is the only part of traditional culture that was lost. But, still we can't say the argument to be acceptable, since that one loss could be a significant loss. The argument is not strengthened.

2. Answer -> No
If "tribal structure" is not the only part of traditional culture that was lost, then the loss is even higher and therefore the argument in unjustified

C) seems to be better than B).

Experts please comment

semwal · Answer

i agree with kinghytes.......
(B) Is the tribal structure the only part of traditional culture that Country X has lost?
 1. first scenario.... YES. SO STILL HOW CAN WE SAY THAT THE ECONOMIC GROWTH IS DUE TO TRIBAL STRUCTURE LOSS.... IT COULD STILL BE SOMETHING ELSE......
 2. second scenario.....NO. THIS MEANS THAT THERE COULD BE OTHER ASPECTS OF TRADITIONAL CULTURE LOSS THAT COULD HAVE RESULTED IN ECONOMIC GROWTH.....

HENCE, answer (B) is not conclusive...... ANSWER (C) AT LEAST BRINGS OUT EXAMPLESOF SIMILAR SITUATION IN OTHER COUNTRIES WHICH MAY INDICATE THE SCENARIO HERE......

(C) IS A BETTER ANSWER THAN (B)........

Purvidebuka · Answer

I am unable to understand what about choice B makes it the correct one? Isn't it already mentioned that "tribal traditions dominated the culture of Country X". How is knowing the information provided by B helpful?

ryanstarr · Answer

Essentially this is a cause-and-effect argument. The author of the argument has tied two things that happened together: the tribal structure was abandoned, and there was a period of fast economic growth. However, there's no guarantee that just because these two things happened in succession, one was the cause of the other. They could have happened in this way as a matter of pure coincidence; likewise, there could've been other things that also changed at the same time. For example, maybe as tribal traditions were abandoned, there was also an unprecedented opening of the country's borders to trade with other countries. In this scenario, the abandonment of the tribal traditions might be purely incidental, and the opening of the borders might have been the main driver of the economic improvement. This is why B is correct. It's essentially asking whether there were any other changes in the country at around the same time. If there  were  other changes, it casts doubt on the validity of implying that the abandonment of the tribal traditions was responsible for the economic boom in the country. Maybe the tribal traditions could've been kept even as the economic benefits rained down. If there  weren't  any other changes going on in the country in the time preceding the economic boom, it's more likely that indeed the abandonment of tribal traditions  did  contribute to the boom. As such, this is a key question to ask in order to determine the strength of the argument.

Tl;dr: in a cause-and-effect argument, you should always consider whether there were possible causes for the purported effect  other  than the causes mentioned in the argument. Just like a good scientist, you should make sure that the variable the argument mentions is the  only  variable worth considering in the situation.

licrolicro · Answer

To evaluate the validity of the argument, we need to determine whether the loss of tribal structures is truly responsible for the economic growth in Country X, or if other factors could explain the improvement. The argument assumes a causal relationship (tribal structure loss → economic growth) without considering alternative explanations or potential confounding variables.
Key Points to Evaluate:

Is the economic growth actually caused by the loss of tribal structures?

Could other factors (e.g., technological advancements, foreign investment, policy changes) be driving growth instead?

Are there counterexamples?

Do other countries with tribal structures also experience growth, suggesting that tribal traditions are not inherently economically harmful?

Is the loss of tribal structures the only cultural change?

If other cultural changes occurred simultaneously, they might be the real cause of growth.

Analyzing the Options:

(A) How long tribal structures existed is irrelevant to whether their loss caused economic growth.

(B) This is important because if other cultural changes happened, they might be the real cause of growth.

(C) This is very relevant—if other countries kept tribal structures and still grew economically, it weakens the argument that tribal loss was necessary for growth.

(D) Public opinion on whether it’s a "tragedy" doesn’t address the economic causality.

(E) This explores other job sectors, but it doesn’t directly challenge the argument’s causal claim.

Best Choice: (C)

If other countries kept tribal structures and still grew, it suggests that tribal traditions are not inherently economically harmful, weakening the argument.

If no such countries exist, it would support the argument.

Thus, (C) is the most helpful question for evaluating the argument’s validity.

No resident of Country X should consider the loss of the

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

No resident of Country X should consider the loss of the

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