Politician: When my opponent took office her main promise to the

Question

Politician: When my opponent took office her main promise to the people was that she would stimulate the economy. That promise was clearly a lie, however, as evidenced by the amount of money she has spent on feel-good social programs such as federally-subsidized child care and elder care. In fact, each year she has been in office, the country has set a record for spending on child and elder care programs.

Which of the following is an assumption required by the argument above?

A. Child and elder care programs are a poor use of a government’s money. 
 B. Social programs like child and elder care are the only way to stimulate a country’s economy. 
 C. Politicians have the ability to stimulate an economy. 
 D. It is not possible for a government to spend money on social programs and also stimulate the economy. 
 E. Child and elder care programs are not the only social programs for which the politician’s opponent has set spending records.

This is a  CR Butler Question

Check the links to other Butler Projects:

Data Sufficiency Butler  
  Problem Solving Butler  
  Sentence Correction Butler  
  Reading Comprehension Butler  
  Integrated Reasoning Butler

Shwarma · Answer

Option D

Assumption --> has to be true to say --> he/she has done so many social programs --> thus has NOT stimulated the economy 
This conclusion can only be drawn when one beliefs you cannot do both simultaneously

Option D is a straight fwd solution

Abdelaali91 · Answer

Straightforward question. 
Just negate D and the argument would fall apart.

prantorboni · Answer

Politician: When my opponent took office her main promise to the people was that she would stimulate the economy. That promise was clearly a lie, however, as evidenced by the amount of money she has spent on feel-good social programs such as federally-subsidized child care and elder care. In fact, each year she has been in office, the country has set a record for spending on child and elder care programs.

O pponent's main promise was to stimulate the economy .  But, that promise was clearly a lie   which is evidenced by the amount of money she has spent on feel-good social programs. Up to this point, according to the politician, if the government spent money on social programs, then it is not possible for the government   to stimulate the economy at the same time. Later, the country has set a record for spending on child and elder care programs, which indicates it has now become more difficult for the government to stimulate the economy than ever. Now, consider the option,   D. It is not possible for a government to spend money on social programs and also stimulate the economy, which completely aligns with our presumption.

Answer: D.

Bunuel · Answer

Veritas Prep Official Solution:

This problem is a great candidate for the Assumption Negation Technique. If you negate the correct answer, D, it becomes:

It is possible for a government to spend money on social programs and also stimulate the economy.

And you can see that this completely invalidates the argument. The given argument claims that the current official lied about saying she would stimulate the economy, with its only premise for that claim being "she has spent a lot of money on social programs." If it is, indeed, possible to spend money on social programs and also stimulate the economy, then that sole piece of evidence doesn't have any value; as it currently stands, spending money on social programs is not at all connected to the stimulation of the economy.

With the incorrect answer choices, note the specificity of the argument, which is "she said she would stimulate the economy, but she lied." Choice A supports a different argument (she's using money unwisely) but doesn't connect to "she is not stimulating the economy." Similarly, choice E adds more value to the premise ("she's spending a lot of money on social programs") but as discussed above that premise is not connected to the conclusion. Choice B goes contrary to his argument - if her spending were the only way to stimulate the economy, as B says, that would directly weaken his argument.

Choice C can perhaps be best understood by negation, too; if you negate C it then says "politicians do not have the ability to stimulate the economy." Note that here this does not weaken the conclusion (as a correct assumption answer will do once negated). Since the politician wants to essentially say that his opponent is not stimulating the economy, if anything this negated answer would help him, meaning that the assumption as it stands does not help him. Therefore, C is also incorrect.

Politician: When my opponent took office her main promise to 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

Politician: When my opponent took office her main promise to 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