The number of cases in which prison inmates manipulate the welfare sys

Question

The number of cases in which prison inmates manipulate the welfare system to provide themselves with benefits is very small. But the widespread public outrage over such cases makes them tempting examples to use in arguments for severely limiting welfare programs. This is because these rare but extreme cases of welfare fraud help to harden public attitudes towards welfare more effectively than standard cases, in which needy, law-abiding individuals manipulate the system to receive larger benefits.

The claims above can best serve as part of an argument against the view that

A. those who wish to change public attitudes towards the poor should focus public attention on welfare

B. a type of welfare fraud can both be common and lead to widespread public outrage

C. the public is interested in welfare fraud

D. the frequency with which a type of welfare fraud occurs is a good indicator of its effect on public opinion

E. cases of welfare fraud occur less often than cases in which welfare benefits are not fraudulently received

Answer is D - the answer should be E - argument is against the view - if anything D is for the view if correctly read...

gmattodreamschool · Accepted Answer

understanding from question:  inmates manipulate welfare system rarely compared to law abiding citizen , but those cases in which inmates are the culprits, make more public outrage than do those in which normal people are the culprit.

mental structure:

inmates committing fraud < public committing fraud - by number 
inmate committing fraud >>> public committing fraud - by public outrage

therefore, 
The claims above can best serve  as part of an argument against the view  that

d) the frequency with which a type of welfare fraud occurs is a good indicator of its effect on public opinion

since , if frequency of crime was a good indicator of effect in public opinion then a commoner committing fraud must create more outrage than a inmate committing fraud

Sneha333 · Answer

Please explain this question.
None of the options look correct.
D cannot be the answer as it is supported by the argument.
Also,E cannot be as Welfare fraud and fraudulently received welfare benefits are essentially welfare frauds.

ueh55406 · Answer

I think most people can safely eliminate others to reach here.

The claims above can best serve as part of an argument against the view that :  translation :  the above passage can be used to argue against which of the following statements:

D. the frequency with which a type of welfare fraud occurs is a good indicator of its effect on public opinion >>

Public outrage is for those few rare (but extreme cases) so, say 1 out of 1000 cases of welfare funding turns out to be a welfare fraud and the outrage blows out of proportion because of this 1 (rare, extreme case) is it fair to scrutinize the other 999 cases because of this? so, we can use the above argument to argue against this one.

E. cases of welfare fraud occur less often than cases in which welfare benefits are not fraudulently received >>

This one also talks about the frequency of one thing to the other, but look closely, what is it comparing ? a welfare fraud to fraudulently receiving welfare funds, so basically the same thing. you can eliminate this.

sayan640 · Answer

MartyMurray   KarishmaB  , Is this a correct question ? None of the options look correct to me..Kindly help.

MartyMurray · Answer

Yes, the question works. (D) is clearly the correct answer, as explained by  ueh55406 .

rrahulvverma · Answer

Hi  MartyMurray  - B and D looks so similar. Then why is B not correct when it also clearly indicates that a common fraud (meaning occurring more frequently) can lead to widespread public outrage. Isnt this exactly what the argument is trying to go against?

MartyMurray · Answer

Here's (B):

a type of welfare fraud can both be common and lead to widespread public outrage

Notice that the point of the argument is not that common types of welfare fraud cannot lead to outrage.

Rather, it's that "rare but extreme cases of welfare fraud help to  harden public attitudes towards welfare more effectively  than standard cases."

So, the argument leaves open the possibility that "standard cases" or other "common types" of welfare fraud can "lead to outrage," saying only that certain "rare" types harden public attitudes "more effectively," meaning that other types of welfare fraud can "harden public attitudes," or even cause outrage, but not as effectively as rare but extreme types.

The number of cases in which prison inmates manipulate the welfare sys

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 number of cases in which prison inmates manipulate the welfare sys

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