The coming economic recovery will surely be strong. Most of

Question

The coming economic recovery will surely be strong. Most of the economists in the investment companies now aggree this is so, though the leading academic economists still think otherwise. since the investment companies' economists are risking their jobs when they make forecasts, wheras academic economists have lifelong tenure, it generally makes sense to take the investment companies' economists more seriously.

The main conclusion of the argument is supported only

A. by comparing the number of experts who agree with the conclusion with the number who disagree with the conclusion

B. through an assessment of the likely risks and consequences of believing one or another strand of expert opinion

C. through projection from the economic prospects for investment companies to the economic prospects for the economy as a whole

D. through an assessment of the relative reliability of the experts who agree with the conclusion as compared with that of those who disagree

E. by attacking the character of those experts who disagree with the conclusion

sudish · Answer

IMO option B.

This is because the argument assumes that if the investment companies' economists make a wrong or incorrect prediction, it is likely that they will lose their job. However, the academic economists' jobs are safe even when their prediction turns out to be an incorrect one.
This suggests that the conclusion is based on the likely assessment of the risks and consequences of each economists' opinion.

Mindreko · Answer

I struggled with this one. What's the OA?

liftoff · Answer

I will go with B. Mainly because of this "Since the investment companies' economists are risking their jobs when they make forecasts"

DexDee · Answer

D for me.

The argument tries to say that investment company's economists are more reliable than the academics because the economists are accountable for their predictions. The academics might be able to get away with a wrong prediction though. That is the idea I see.

OA ?

tuanquang269 · Answer

I choose C. What is the OA?

C. through projection from the economic prospects for investment companies to the economic prospects for the economy as a whole

evangreen · Answer

I was torn between B and D originally, but after taking a second look at them I believe D is the correct answer. It is the economists who are taking a risk, and not the person deciding which economist to agree with.

D

D

kuttingchai · Answer

I vote for D . Waiting for someone to post OA

Strengthen the Conc:

Indust Eco eco risk job- forecasts - Acad Eco long tenure, take Indust Eco opinion more seriously

---------------------------------------------

- IE agree - Eco recovery to be strong
- BUT AE disagree - ECO recovery not to be strong

A - IRR
B - Open discussion and IRR
C - IRR
D - "Relative" proportion to who agree vs who disagree - correct
E - Irr

abk · Answer

I think the answer is D. I was wavering between B and D, but went with D since the answer focuses on the reliability of the experts in question. Since the conclusion focused on the reliability of either group of experts (due to job insecurity or lack thereof), I think that D would be the most supporting.

tuanquang269 · Answer

My 2nd thought, I choose D. This answer is more relevant and precise in supporting the argument.

Dreaming · Answer

+1 D.........OA please...........
The coming economic recovery will surely be strong .=>main conclusion  
Most of the economists in the investment companies now aggree this is so, though the leading academic economists still think otherwise since the investment companies' economists are risking their jobs when they make forecasts, wheras academic economists have lifelong tenure,  .=>premise 
it generally makes sense to take the investment companies' economists more seriously .=>intermediate conclusion  
A. by comparing the number of experts who agree with the conclusion with the number who disagree with the conclusion   number of ....Out of scope 
B. through an assessment of the likely risks and consequences of believing one or another strand of expert opinion. Risks and consequences after believing hasnt been discussed ; only reasons for why one strand might be more believable has been discussed C. through projection from the economic prospects for investment companies to the economic prospects for the economy as a whole.  Economic prospects of investment companies not being discussed at all. 
D. through an assessment of the relative reliability of the experts who agree with the conclusion as compared with that of those who disagree. CORRECT Thats what has been done by the author.....according to him the industry experts are relatively more reliable because they have an incentive to be correct  
E. by attacking the character of those experts who disagree with the conclusion.  Charecter doesnt come into picture

htugnawat · Answer

I was struggling between C and D . But at the end I chose C . Can someone please post the OA.

debapriyo · Answer

I will go with D.
Exp :
Close call between B and D , though B talks about the risks and consequences of believing one to other ,not the argument of reasoning . Whereas D talks rightly about the reliability ( ''it generally makes sense to take the investment companies' economists more  seriously '') which explains the situation.

prab · Answer

conclusion: trust the economist from the investment companies.
reason: their job depends on it.

A: out, nothing to do with the number of economist on the both sides
B: evaluating risk, might not help the economist from the investment companies.
C:comparing economic prospects wont help.
E: out of scope.

D is the only one left!

Whats the OA.

calreg11 · Answer

I was torn between b and D.
B is wrong though because it talks about the risks involved in believing in the strand of opinion.
D is correct because it analyzes why one set of opinions is more reliable than another.

nick0203 · Answer

A. Out of scope. Numbers really are not a concern here. It is the collective opinion that matters.
B. Risks and consequences involved in believing hasn't been discussed; only reasons for why one strand might be more believable has been discussed
C. Economic prospects of investment companies not being discussed at all.
D. CORRECT. Analyzes why one set of opinions is more reliable than another. According to author, the industry experts are relatively more reliable because they have an incentive to be correct 
E. Character doesn’t come into picture

Praval15 · Answer

Option B is a trap; reading carefully it talks of likely risks emanating from  believing  the opinion. Now, the risk assessment in the passage talks of and deals with relative risks being undertaken by the experts and not relative risks flowing out of believing the opinions. D is much better as it allows for  assessment  of the reliability of the experts- this is what the passage precisely does when it states that the corporate economists are more reliable than the academic ones because their job is on the line.

kornn · Answer

Dear  VeritasKarishma   AnthonyRitz   IanStewart   GMATGuruNY   AjiteshArun   VeritasPrepBrian ,

Q1. What's wrong with choice E.? 
IMO, Citing the characteristics of the jobs is attacking the character of those experts. Is there any solid reason to reject this choice?

Q2. Where is the "assessment" stated anywhere in the stimulus? 
IMO, There is no pros / cons or even analysis involved. It's just pure speculation.

Thank you!

AjiteshArun · Answer

Hi  varotkorn ,

We should view  character  as a reference to "deeper" qualities. Take a look at the following:

1. Police put their lives on the line every day.
2. Other citizens do not.

This doesn't automatically mean that other citizens are morally deficient in some way . For example, we could use these two to say that police are in the best position to decide on issues that affect them. This would not be an attack on the character of other citizens. It'd be more like "police have more at stake, and so are more likely to take better decisions".

kornn · Answer

Dear AjiteshArun , Thank you for your response! Q1. You have provided an example to illustrate the correct choice D. Could you also provide an example for what choice E. might look like - "deeper" qualities? I'm still not sure whether I can tell the differences between the two. Q2. I've been taught to be aware of the word "assessment" that it must be the analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of the topic. I haven't seen any of that in the correct choice D. Could you please guide what to look for when I see "assessment"? Thank you as always sir!

The coming economic recovery will surely be strong. Most of

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 coming economic recovery will surely be strong. Most of

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