Bethany: The unavailability of adequate clean water is a serious issue

Question

Bethany: The unavailability of adequate clean water is a serious issue for the villagers. This leads to the spread of various chronic diseases. The government must take immediate measures to address this issue.

Camilia: I disagree. Sanitation is a bigger problem in the village, causing more serious health conditions. The government’s priority must be to improve the sanitation in the village.

Which of the following suggests the fundamental flaw in Camilia’s reasoning?

A- She fails to back her claims with relevant data.

B- She assumes that Bethany is not in favor of government measures for improving sanitation conditions in the village.

C- In her attempt to propose a progressive step, she counters another progressive step.

D- She assumes that the sanitation problem is not linked with the lack of adequate clean water for the villagers.

E- She assumes that solving the sanitation problem in the village will automatically solve the issue of the unavailability of adequate clean water.

Source: Experts' Global.

KarishmaB · Accepted Answer

Bethany: Clean water is a serious issue and should be addressed.
Camilia's reasoning - I disagree. (meaning clean water is not a serious issue and its ok to not address it?) Sanitation is a bigger problem and should take priority.

Camilia proposes a progressive step while opposing Bethany's progressive step. Camilia proposing addressing sanitation is not a problem. Her opposition to Bethany's proposal is a flaw. So (C) is correct.

D- She assumes that the sanitation problem is not linked with the lack of adequate clean water for the villagers. 
First of all, do we know whether sanitation problem is linked to lack of clean water? No. We know that both issues are there in the village but are they linked? Is it necessary that sanitation waste is dirtying portable water? No, we don't know. Then how can we evaluate whether her argument is flawed on that basis? For all we know, perhaps sanitation problem is not linked to clean water problem. Perhaps it is partially linked or perhaps resolving one will resolve the other - the point is we don't know. So this is irrelevant.

Answer (C)

Sarjaria84 · Answer

Hi,

I too marked 'D'.

rohan2345  can you please provide the reasoning for choice 'C'.

rohan2345 · Answer

Hi Sarjaria84,

Here is the official explanation for this question.

Official explanation –

The main problem with Camilia’s argument is the “I disagree” part; while she may believe that sanitation is a bigger issue (and it may actually be so), her disagreement for a solution to another problem is where the fundamental flaw in her reasoning lies.

A- While lack of data is a shortcoming in Camilia’s argument, it cannot be called ‘fundamental flaw’ in her reasoning.

B- There is no evidence of this in the reasoning; an amateurish answer choice.
 
 C- Correct. As suggested above, this addresses the fundamental flaw in Camilia’s reasoning.
 
 D- While this qualifies as a fair ‘assumption’ in Camilia’s argument, this doesn’t qualify as the ‘fundamental flaw’ in her reasoning

E- Not a good reasoning. Incorrect.

sony1000 · Answer

I think D is not accepted as right answer because the argument does not derive that Camilia thinks that clean water is not related to Sanitation, yet she might still propose her sanitation project over clean water. If we negate D, Camilia assumes that sanitation is linked to clean water, her proposal still stays strong as we do not now what type of sanitation is being discussed (it could be placing new seawage piping) thus not causing flaw in her reasoning.

njnikhiljindal567 · Answer

Hi,

The "I disagree" part of the argument can also be interpreted in a way that Camilia disagrees with Bethany's view of the government taking "Immediate" action on the water problem. In that case, Camilla does not disagree with Bethany's solution, instead just disagree with the importance associated with it, which is fair.

Aviral1995 · Answer

VeritasKarishma   GMATNinja   ExpertsGlobal5  please help me between option C and D?

KeyurJoshi · Answer

B- She assumes that Bethany is not in favor of government measures for improving sanitation conditions in the village.
Lets say she did not assume that and assumes that Bethany is in favour of govt measures for improving sanitation conditions in the village. Well, Camila's claim, prioritize sanitation over clean water, can still stand. So this is not a required assumption and does not constitute a flaw.

D- She assumes that the sanitation problem is not linked with the lack of adequate clean water for the villagers.
Lets say Camila did not assume that and instead assumes that sanitation problem IS in fact linked with lack of clean water. But similarly, Camila's claim, prioritize sanitation over clean water (maybe sanitation will solve the problem of lack of clean water), can still stand and her disagreement over priority of these two would've still been valid. So this is not a required assumption and does not constitute a flaw.

Thekingmaker · Answer

D links both the problem perfectly and adresses a flaw 
C posts assumption i would rather think Gmat would rather propose that has something linking the 2 passages just my thoughts.......

kittle · Answer

Righ Karishma Veritas is right
We can say something is flaw based on some factual incorrectness
Given we don't know if the two causes need to be linked we can't say if that her assuming "no linking exists" is a flaw.

nayas96 · Answer

KarishmaB  I agree with your reasoning regarding the error in option (D).

Considering option (C), which says " In her attempt to propose a progressive step, she counters another progressive step.
". On what basis, can we say that "sanitation" is a progressive step from "unavailability of water"? Because she uses the words "I disagree", this would not mean it is a progressive step, it seems to be more of a new suggestion.

Kindly please help me clarify this issue 
 GMATNinjaTwo   mira93   nightblade354   carouselambra   GMATNinja

KarishmaB · Answer

A "progressive step" means a step that will help the village progress. 
Clean drinking water is a progressive step. It is good for the village and will help the villagers.
Sanitation is also a progressive step. It is also good for the village and will help the villagers. 
Camilla proposes one progressive step but when she says "I disagree", she is opposing the progressive step Bethany had proposed. Both steps are important for the village.

Sidban · Answer

Hi,

The way I looked at the problem is as under:

Bethany suggested that the Government should take "IMMEDIATE" steps for clean water for villagers.

Note: I believe this is the main suggestion/opinion of Bethany.

Camilie: I disagree. The sanitation is the bigger problem. It should resolved first/on priority.

Camilie gives reasoning that govt should tackle sanitation first then go to the issue of clean water availability, otherwise the "IMMEDIATE" action on clean water will delay priority goal of sanitation.

if both things are linked i.e. clean water might help in sanitation or vice versa, government can help mitigate both issues together.

But she is positively assuming that both of the things are not linked and hence cannot be done together i.e. Clean water availability does not help in the priority goal of sanitation or vice versa.

Therefore, I believe the correct choice should be D.

For "C", She is not opposing a "progressive step" of working clean water availability, she is only opposing IMMEDIATE action on it. Hence C should not be correct.

Experts please guide

thegmatmaster · Answer

Reviving this discussion.

I'm having difficulty understanding why C is correct. Beth argument is that the water problem should be tackled immediatly. Camila disagrees with Beth - therefore, with the prioritization. In her perspective, another issue is of higher gravity and priority.

She's not disagreeing that the water is an issue, but rather with the conclusion that is should be addressed immediatly. My rationale would invalidate C as correct.

Would love to hear your opinions
 Maxximus 
 KarishmaB 
 GMATNinja

KarishmaB · Answer

Bethany: X is a big problem. Resolve it right now. 
Camilia: No, Y is a bigger problem. Prioritise it instead.

By suggesting that priority must be given to Y, Camilia is countering X. Something like, "We will see about X later. Let's resolve Y first." 
When Camilia says, "I disagree," she is countering Bethany's proposal.

In any case, is there any other option that works better? No.

Gemmie · Answer

C. In her attempt to propose a progressive step, she counters another progressive step.

This option correctly identifies that Camilia’s reasoning is flawed because she counters one good action (addressing clean water) by proposing another (improving sanitation), without recognizing that both actions are necessary and not mutually exclusive.  Camilia’s primary flaw is not about the connection between water and sanitation but about framing the situation as an "either/or" choice when both are important.

---

Why choosing C over D

D  focuses on an assumption that Camilia might or might not have made explicitly, but it’s not central to her argument.  The passage doesn't give strong evidence that Camilia directly assumes there's no link between sanitation and clean water ; her main point is about prioritization.

C  more accurately captures the flaw by highlighting that Camilia’s counter-argument unnecessarily opposes another important issue, rather than recognizing that both can be pursued together.

=> Conclusion:   C  is stronger because it directly addresses the nature of Camilia’s argument—she pits two important actions against each other instead of recognizing that they can both be valid and necessary.  D , while relevant, assumes a line of reasoning that isn't as clearly presented in the argument, making it less direct and therefore less strong.

Dream009 · Answer

Sometimes I just feel few answers are answers for the sake of it.

Bethany: The unavailability of adequate clean water is a serious issue

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

Bethany: The unavailability of adequate clean water is a serious issue

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