There are those who complain that municipal libraries are

Question

There are those who complain that municipal libraries are outdated and unnecessary.  These same people object to the tax dollars spent funding municipal libraries.  However, these people are missing out on a simple pleasure: reading a great book. Taken this way,  libraries are truly wonderful resources worthy of public funding.

The two boldface portions play which of the following roles?

(A) The first is a generalization accepted by the author as true; the second is a consequence that follows from the truth of that generalization. 
(B) The first is evidence that supports one of two contradictory points of view; the second is the second point of view. 
(C) The first is a commonly held point of view; the second is support for that point of view. 
(D) The first is one of two contradictory points of view; the second is the other point of view. 
(E) The first concedes a consideration that weighs against the viewpoint of the author; the second is that viewpoint.

Can someone explain why B and E are incorrect? Thanks

mikemcgarry · Accepted Answer

I got a p.m. from my friend voodoochild , so I am responding. Let's dissect this argument. Sentence #1 --- statement of fact --- there are people that are down on libraries --- this is kinda evidence for Sentence #2 Sentence #2 (bold) --- statement of fact ---- they hold View #1 Sentence #3 --- big change of gears, new perspective, evidence for Sentence #4 Sentence #4 (bold) --- author states View #2 as his conclusion. The reason I called Sentence #2 "View #1" was because --- that's a direct contrast to the author's conclusion --- the author wants to spend public money on libraries, and sentence #2 expresses the exact opposite of that. So, first bold is one view, second bold is another view. (D) describes that reasonably well. What's wrong with (B)? (B) The first is evidence that supports one of two contradictory points of view; the second is the second point of view. Well, I agree with the second half --- the second bold is the second point of view. The first part though --- think about it this way: Sentence #1 = they have views: libraries are outdated Sentence #2 = they have fiscal recommendation: don't fund libraries. Which way does cause-and-effect point? Does it point from Sentence #1 to Sentence #2, or vice versa? Do they want to cut funding to libraries because they think they're outdated? Or do they think libraries are outdated because they want to cut funding to them? I would say the former is a much more likely order of logic. People decide such-and-such an institution is no good, then they start to gripe about tax money going to it. The thing that is the supporting reason is the evidence --- so sentence #1 is evidence for sentence #2, which is the view itself, not the other way around. Sentence #2 is NOT "evidence that supports one of two contradictory points of view" ---- rather, it IS that contradictory view, and sentence #1 is the evidence. Does that make sense? What's wrong with (E)? (E) The first concedes a consideration that weighs against the viewpoint of the author; the second is that viewpoint. First of all, the author made no concessions --- in the first two sentences, the author was just objective descriptive and dispassionate. Conceding means the author says something like, "I hate to admit it, but my opponents are right when they say ..." Concession has to involve some kind of approval given to the opposing view. This author merely states that view, and says nothing in support of it. Second, that sentence is not a "consideration" --- it's not a thoughtful reflective introspective insight into something meaningful about the issue. No, it's just those loud mouths saying, "We don't want tax money going to the outdated library!" That's a statement of fact, and not a particularly delicate one at that. A consideration would be along the lines of "It occurs to me, if one were to think through the long-term consequences of such a policy, etc." It connotes thoughtfulness, a product of reflection, something that involves insight that would not be readily apparent to everyone. Sentence #2 is nothing of the sort. Sentence #2 is simply a direct statement of the view that the author opposes, no more. Does that make sense? Mike :-)

KarishmaB · Answer

Responding to a pm:
(Though Mike has already explained it well, I will add some of my thoughts here.)

There are two opposite viewpoints. 
View 1: Libraries are outdated and unnecessary. Don't fund them.
View 2: Libraries are wonderful resources worthy of public funding.

I hope you see that (D) is correct.

(B) is incorrect because 'don't fund libraries' is not evidence. It is a part of the point of view. When you say libraries are outdated, you are not supporting your statement if you add 'don't fund them'. You are still giving your opinion only. What would be evidence? "Number of people visiting the libraries has dwindled over the years. Most people like to read e-books instead of paper backs nowadays." etc

What is "conceding a consideration that weighs against your viewpoint"? It means "giving in to a reason supporting the opposite viewpoint." 
Say, if the library-haters say, "The community will be better served if the public funding is instead diverted to the hospitals." and the author says, "I agree that our hospitals need the public funding more than the libraries but ..." then he just conceded a consideration that weighs against his viewpoint.

EnemyInside · Answer

i too think its E ..

1st Bold faced sentence concedes a consideration that weighs against the author's view point which is the second statement..

Whats wrong with this ??

mikemcgarry · Answer

Did you read my argument in the third post from the top of the page? Did you read Karishma's wise words in the following post? What in those two arguments do you not understand? Are there points with which you do not agree? Present a counter-argument to what we have said, and we will have something to discuss. Mike :-)

tieurongthieng · Answer

Hi there,

I read the two long explanations above from Mike and Karishma and still could not get rid of answer choice B:

(B)  The first is evidence that supports one of two contradictory points of view;  the second is the second point of view.

Here is my understanding of the stimulus in a different view:

"There are those who complain that municipal libraries are outdated and unnecessary. These same people object to the tax dollars spent funding municipal libraries."

I understand this two sentence under the view of the writer as: "There are those who complain about and  view  that municipal libraries as outdated and unnecessary. Look, they already object to tax dollars spent funding municipal libraries, so they clearly think municipal libraries as unnecessary to be funded!"

Understanding as such, I clearly reason the 2nd sentence as an evidence to support the first sentence, the view. Hence, choice B, not D, is correct. More importantly, I cannot comprehend why  sentence 2 can be a view . Citing an act of these people (object to tax dollar spent on municipal libraries) is to prove that these people already have a  view  about municipal libraries being unnecessary, so the action they took (object to tax spent) is reasonable.

Can someone point out something I have overlooked or applied incorrectly, if that was the case?

KarishmaB · Answer

Quick question: Do you whole heartedly agree that view 2 is this:  libraries are truly wonderful resources worthy of public funding ?

Think about it properly before you answer.

View 2: libraries are  truly wonderful  resources  worthy of public funding

Now, why do you think that view 1 is not represented by these two sentences:

There are those who complain that municipal libraries are  outdated and unnecessary . These same people  object to the tax dollars spent funding municipal libraries

Is it because it is split into two sentences?

tieurongthieng · Answer

Thank Karishma for the quick follow up.

There is no deny that view 2 is: libraries are truly wonderful resources worthy of public funding. The view is: Libraries are wonderful resources worthy of public funding. We can conclude this view because of sentence 3: Reading great books are great pleasure, thus library are great, and since it is great, it is worthy to be funded.

I agree that view 1 is represented by the first two sentences. My problem is that I consider sentence 1 to be a view, as "these libraries are outdated and unnecessary" as view, supported by the evidence that "these people object to fund library, proving their view of library as outdated is confirmed".

After pondering over the questions for a few more minutes, I realize things would be more simple to understand if I understand the structure of the stimulus to be parallel, which means:
Sentence 1: Evidence
Sentence 2: View
then:
Sentence 3: Evidence
Sentence 3: View

So sentence 2: "These same people object to fund library" can become the view: "Libraries are not worth to be funded", because of the 1st sentence: "they are really outdated and unnecessary!". Comparing this 1st view to the 2nd view: "libraries are worth to be funded", then boom, things are 100% clear now!

Looking back, I think my issue is not comprehending fully the 2nd view: Libraries are wonderful resources worthy of public funding. Without connecting to the 3rd sentence, which provides the evidence explain why libraries are wonderful resources, I mistakenly shorten the 2nd view to: "Libraries are wonderful resources", thus looking for the 1st view as "Library are not wonderful resources", which was my mistake. The 1st view should be "Libraries are not worth be funded".

Long reply and could have been written more concise, but please do tell me if my reasoning are correct and is there anything that can be added to it?

P/S: If there are only sentence 1 and 2, the view really could be understood both ways to me! It is sentence 3 and 4 that clarify the 1st view! :D

P/S: If there are only sentence 1 and 2, the view really could be understood both ways to me! It is sentence 3 and 4 that clarify the 1st view! :D

KarishmaB · Answer

To me, it isn't necessarily an evidence and view scenario:

For example: She is a wonderful human being worthy of my attention.
is not necessarily the same as "She is a wonderful human being and hence worthy of my attention."

I could be giving two characteristics: She is wonderful and she is worthy of my attention (could be because of multiple factors such as she is smart, witty, sincere, wonderful ... )

Therefore, I am not entirely convinced about your Evidence and View setup though you might consider it one way of looking at the argument.

ssriva2 · Answer

VeritasPrepKarishma  and  mikemcgarry ,
I have one doubt.I know its between B and D.
IN D,THE FIRST STATEMENT IS POINT OF VIEW
IN B,FIRST STATEMENT IS EVIDENCE.
As far as I have done bold-face,claim/point of view can be disputed but evidence cannot be disputed.If people are funding libraries.This cannot be disputed,so it should be evidence.
Please explain this doubt !

mikemcgarry · Answer

Dear ssriva2 , I'm happy to respond. :-)

Here's the question again: There are those who complain that municipal libraries are outdated and unnecessary. These same people object to the tax dollars spent funding municipal libraries . However, these people are missing out on a simple pleasure: reading a great book. Taken this way, libraries are truly wonderful resources worthy of public funding . The two boldface portions play which of the following roles? (A) The first is a generalization accepted by the author as true; the second is a consequence that follows from the truth of that generalization. (B) The first is evidence that supports one of two contradictory points of view; the second is the second point of view. (C) The first is a commonly held point of view; the second is support for that point of view. (D) The first is one of two contradictory points of view; the second is the other point of view. (E) The first concedes a consideration that weighs against the viewpoint of the author; the second is that viewpoint. Here's the tricky thing:. That first bold statement is a report of the view of someone. If someone says, " I object to the tax dollars spent funding municipal libraries " that's a point-of-view, and we could dispute that. But this sentence is a report of a point-of-view: These same people object to the tax dollars spent funding municipal libraries . Well, we can't dispute the fact that there are some people who say this, some people who have this point of view. In that sense, it's evidence as well. Here, context is important. The point of this sentence in the passage is to present the point-of-view itself, not to discuss the people who are saying this. In that sense, it's better to call it a point-of-view. Does this make sense? Mike :-)

RahulSingh13 · Answer

Hi Vodoochild,

I agree with your rationale here. I too feel that the wording "Concedes" doesn't imply a concession on part of the author of the argument. Besides, the issue that i have with Option D is that i believe the first bold face is not a view point it's simply something that points towards the actual viewpoint  (municipal libraries are outdated and unnecessary)  in opposition to that of the author's.

mikemcgarry · Answer

Dear RahulSingh13 I'm happy to respond. :-)

My friend, I don't know if you appreciate that vodoochild was simply a student like you. He posted the comment you quoted on August 22, 2012---over three years ago. He hasn't been on GMAT Club for some time. Presumably he has taken his GMAT and has gotten accepted to business school somewhere. He may be in business school now or he may be graduated with his MBA, but I suspect that wherever he is at this point, the GMAT is simply a memory, no longer a concern. The experts such as the wise Karishma and myself remain here, but the students are only here while they study. My friend, by definition the word " concedes " implies a " concession "--- these are the verb & noun form of the exact same word, like " imply " & " implication ," or " suggest " & " suggestion ." A statement of fact is not a concession. The word " concede " implies something grudgingly done, something someone admits that they really would have preferred not to have admitted. A plain, neutral statement of fact does not fit this description, and the first BF statement, " These same people object to the tax dollars spent funding municipal libraries ," is a statement of fact. Now, as it happens, this statement of fact is a statement about people expressing an opinion, a point of view. Very technically, it is not the viewpoint itself but a description of people expressing this viewpoint. Yes, that is technically true, but that kind of hair-splitting is not going to help you on the GMAT CR: in fact, adhering to this kind of hyper-technical distinctions will only get you in trouble on the GMAT CR. Does all this make sense? Mike :-)

gullyboy09 · Answer

Hi  MartyMurray , "These same people object to the tax dollars spent funding municipal libraries. ", how come this is a viewpoint? If a data point says, "The client sold 500 shares," that is an objective event. It is not a viewpoint. A viewpoint would be the client's reason for selling (e.g., "I believe the stock is overvalued"). In that case I would go with B instead, at least BF1 supporting first line of the passage.

There are those who complain that municipal libraries are

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

There are those who complain that municipal libraries are

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