In an attempt to counter a rise in the number of cases of child

Question

In an attempt to counter a rise in the number of cases of child neglect, child abuse, and general domestic problems, the government has decided to fund a program for the education of parents. The program has been designed by a team of the country's most talented and renowned experts, and is being offered at community centers in the form of group courses, free of charge. Therefore, parents who abstain from participation in such a course cannot be considered responsible caretakers.

A major flaw in the argument above is that

A major flaw in the argument above is that

(A) an assumption is made about the effectiveness of the program in countering the problem
(B) the caretaking competence of parents who participate in the course is compared to that of those who do not
(C) it fails to mention whether the courses being offered are obligatory or voluntary
(D) it incorrectly equates participating in an activity with pursuing the goals promoted by the activity
(E) it forms a conclusion that is in opposition to the information presented

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

Dereno · Answer

The number of child cases has been on the rise, and government is considering measures to bring this down. One of the measure is educating the parents , which will be funded by the government. And the sensitisation drive will be conducted by a team of renowned experts and talented people in that field.

To ease the participation and increase the rate of participation- the program is fully free of cost, and the program is held at community centres.

The conclusion, mentions that those who don’t participate in this event are not considered responsible caretaker parents.

What is the logical flaw?

(A) an assumption is made about the effectiveness of the program in countering the problem.

This is a wrong option as the outcome of the program is never known. Moreover, the effectiveness of the program is not discussed in the question stem.

(C) it fails to mention whether the courses being offered are obligatory or voluntary.

The nature of course or its attendance is no where mentioned in the question. Hence, wrong .

(D) it incorrectly equates participating in an activity with pursuing the goals promoted by the activity.

The goals of the program is mentioned, and just participating in a program doesn’t connote achievements in goals. Hence, wrong.

(E) it forms a conclusion that is in opposition to the information presented

The conclusion is no where in opposition to the information presented. But, it’s rather a different perception of the author. Hence, wrong. 
 
(B) the caretaking competence of parents who participate in the course is compared to that of those who do not

The conclusion compares the caretaking competence of those who participated vs those who did not. Option B is logical flaw - The conclusion compares the caretaking competence of those who participated vs those who did not. As those who did not participate may be looking after their sick child. So, just merely participating doesn’t equip someone with the skill sets required for combating the problem mentioned in the question.

Option B

rishabhgmat0908 · Answer

But the answer has been marked as D

egmat · Answer

UNDERSTANDING THE PASSAGE
  
 The Situation: 
 
 Government is funding a parenting education program 
 Program is free, well-designed, offered at community centers 
 Goal: counter child neglect and abuse

The Conclusion:  "Parents who abstain from participation cannot be considered responsible caretakers"

The Logic Flow: 
 
 We have this free parenting course 
 If you don't take it 
 → You're not a responsible parent

PRETHINKING THE FLAW

Before looking at answers, ask:  What's wrong with this reasoning? 
The argument says: "If you don't take THIS specific course, you can't be a responsible parent."
 But wait...

Can't someone be a responsible parent WITHOUT taking this particular course?
 
 Maybe they're already great parents 
 Maybe they learned parenting from books, their own parents, experience 
 Maybe they're responsible but just busy

The core problem:  The argument treats not taking the course as proof you're irresponsible. But there are many ways to be a responsible parent besides this one course.
 Prethink:  The flaw is assuming this specific action (taking the course) is the only way to achieve the goal (being responsible).

ANSWER CHOICE ANALYSIS

(A) an assumption is made about the effectiveness of the program 
Does the argument assume the program works? Sure, a little.
But is that the MAJOR flaw? No. Even if the program is super effective, it still doesn't mean people who skip it are irresponsible. They could be responsible in other ways.
 Eliminate.

(B) the caretaking competence of parents who participate is compared to that of those who do not 
This says the flaw is about  comparing  the two groups (participants vs. non-participants).
But the argument doesn't compare them—it makes an absolute judgment: "Don't take the course → You're irresponsible, period."
 Eliminate.

(C) it fails to mention whether the courses are obligatory or voluntary 
This is irrelevant to the logical flaw. Whether mandatory or optional doesn't fix the problem that not attending ≠ being irresponsible.
 Eliminate.

(D) it incorrectly equates participating in an activity with pursuing the goals promoted by the activity 
  YES!  This matches our prethink exactly.
 
 The activity = taking the course 
 The goal = being a responsible caretaker  
The argument treats them as the same: "Don't do the activity? Then you're not pursuing the goal."
But you can pursue responsible parenting (the goal) without taking this specific course (the activity).
 This is it.

(E) it forms a conclusion that is in opposition to the information presented 
The conclusion doesn't contradict the premises. It just doesn't follow logically from them.
 Eliminate.

ANSWER: (D)
The argument wrongly assumes that if you don't participate in this one specific program, you're not trying to be a responsible parent. That's the major flaw.

Dereno · Answer

egmat  Really thanks for shedding some light on this question.

I would greatly appreciate, if you can clarify my doubts, as I am finding hard to convince myself, as few doubts still keeps lingering in my mind.

So, the goal of the program is explained in the first sentence of the question - even though, the goal is not explicitly stated.

Secondly, the conclusion which speaks about : "Parents who abstain from participation cannot be considered responsible caretakers". Yeah, I agree 100% that it’s a judgement.

my doubts : can’t this conclusion be inferred as - parents who attended are being considered as responsible caretakers ?

There are two possible outcomes - Yes / No. First of all, my mind has taken the inference which is not explicitly stated as true. Is it good, that we don’t assume such inferences or are there situations where such inferences (implicit) are true / wrong.

Please share your insights on this .

The conclusion speaks about those who haven’t participated as “ NOT responsible caretakers “ - which made me believe that there is a comparison made between the two groups in question. The word “ responsible caretakers”  pushed me to take a call on option B, even though option D was a tough competitor.

This is where, the picture of care taking competence came in. I have a huge doubt - is the word responsible caretakers not inclined with competence of parenting.

Thirdly, does participation equip someone to contribute towards goals. Which may or may not ? As its person specific.

I really wanted to know, where my reasoning has changed track. I would be immensely happy if you can explain and clear my perception and way I have understood the context.

I value and appreciate your response and time in this regard.

egmat · Answer

DOUBT 1: "Can't we infer that parents who attended ARE considered responsible?"
  
 Your logic:  If non-participants = irresponsible, then participants = responsible, right?
The argument never says participants ARE responsible. It only says non-participants are NOT responsible.

Example:  "People who don't exercise can't be healthy" doesn't mean everyone who exercises IS healthy. You could exercise but smoke and eat junk food.

DOUBT 2: "The conclusion mentions non-participants, so isn't it comparing the two groups?"
  
 What you thought: 
 
 Group A (participants) exists 
 Group B (non-participants) is judged irresponsible 
 So it's comparing A vs B

The reality: 
  A comparison  = "Group A is better/more competent than Group B"
 An absolute judgment  = "Group B doesn't meet the standard, period"

The argument makes an absolute judgment: "If you don't take the course, you're not responsible. End of story."
It doesn't rank participants against non-participants. It just disqualifies non-participants entirely.
 That's NOT a comparison—it's a judgment based on a single criterion.

DOUBT 3: "Doesn't 'responsible caretakers' relate to competence?"
  
 Yes, absolutely.  Responsible = competent.
 But that's not the issue.

(  B) says the flaw is about COMPARING competence between groups. 
The real flaw is:  The argument treats ONE action (taking the course) as the ONLY way to be responsible. 
Even if we agree responsible = competent, the problem isn't a comparison. The problem is the false equation:
 Not taking THIS course = Not responsible at all 
But you can be responsible in many other ways! That's the flaw.

DOUBT 4: "Does participation actually help achieve the goal?"
  
 YOU NAILED IT.  This is exactly the issue!

Participation might help, or might not:
 
 Some don't need it (already great parents) 
 Some take it but don't apply it 
 Some learn responsibility elsewhere

This is why (D) is correct:

The argument EQUATES:
 
 Taking the course (the activity) = Being responsible (the goal)  
But as you realized:  Activity ≠ Goal achievement 
The flaw is treating them as the same thing.

Your instincts were spot-on throughout, you were asking exactly the right questions. The key was just distinguishing between making a comparison versus making a false equation. You've got this!

Dereno · Answer

egmat  Thanks a ton, really appreciate your help. While answering I had these questions pondering my head, but chose the wrong answer.

This subtle variation - comparison vs absolute judgment, and some assumptions from my end, have made me pick the wrong answer choice.

Beyond words to express my gratitude for your valuable response.

Bunuel · Answer

Official Explanation

In an attempt to counter a rise in the number of cases of child neglect, child abuse, and general domestic problems, the government has decided to fund a program for the education of parents. The program has been designed by a team of the country's most talented and renowned experts, and is being offered at community centers in the form of group courses, free of charge. Therefore, parents who abstain from participation in such a course cannot be considered responsible caretakers.

A major flaw in the argument above is that

A major flaw in the argument above is that

(A) an assumption is made about the effectiveness of the program in countering the problem

Incorrect.

This is an Argument Flaw question. You are required to locate the inherent flaw in the argument's conclusion or its underlying assumption. In this argument, sentences 1 and 2 are premises, citing facts. Sentence 3 is the argument's conclusion, as it begins with the conclusion conjunction Therefore:

Premise A: to prevent family problems, a program has been created to teach parents
 +
Premise B: the program is designed by experts and offered to parents as free group courses
 ≠
Conclusion: parents who do not do the course are irresponsible caretakers

The conclusion in the argument is not drawn based on the program's effectiveness or success, so no assumption is required on this matter. The conclusion is drawn based on the intentions behind the program and how participating or not participating reflects the parents' intentions.

(B) the caretaking competence of parents who participate in the course is compared to that of those who do not

Incorrect.

First, there is nothing inherently flawed about comparing a parent that has done the course to one that hasn't. Second, the argument does not actually make any direct comparison between the two parents, but draws a conclusion about the parents who do not participate.

(C) it fails to mention whether the courses being offered are obligatory or voluntary

Incorrect.

The conclusion rests on the fact that parents can choose to do the course or not. If parents were forced to do the course, there would be no argument at all. Also, notice the word  offered  in the second premise. It tells us that the courses are optional and not compulsory.

(D) it incorrectly equates participating in an activity with pursuing the goals promoted by the activity

The author concludes that not participating in the program somehow means parents don't want to solve problems at home, and therefore are not adequate as caretakers. However, even parents who cannot or will not participate in the program could still be pursuing the same goal - family well-being - so this equation is unfounded.

(E) it forms a conclusion that is in opposition to the information presented

Incorrect.

This is an Argument Flaw question. You are required to locate the inherent flaw in the argument's conclusion or its underlying assumption. In this argument, sentences 1 and 2 are premises, citing facts. Sentence 3 is the argument's conclusion, as it begins with the conclusion conjunction Therefore:

Premise A: to prevent family problems, a program has been created to teach parents
 +
Premise B: the program is designed by experts and offered to parents as free group courses
 ≠
Conclusion: parents who do not do the course are irresponsible caretakers

The premises present the governmental program in a positive light and the conclusion condemns parents who won't participate in the program, so it too is in favor of the program. Since the same tone is preserved in both the information and the conclusion, it cannot be argue that they oppose each other.

In an attempt to counter a rise in the number of cases of child

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

In an attempt to counter a rise in the number of cases of child

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