Policy analyst: Most government agencies become less effective over ti

Question

Policy analyst :  Most government agencies become less effective over time . Some experts go so far as to recommend that every agency be eliminated after 10 years and created anew by replacing all of its existing personnel and revamping its bureaucratic structure. However, this policy would be impractical since  certain government agencies perform vital functions, such as protecting national security, and therefore cannot afford even temporary upheaval.

In the policy analyst's argument above, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

(A) The first is evidence offered in support of an opinion that the policy analyst rejects; the second offers information that contradicts that evidence.

(B) The first is a premise that the policy analyst accepts but argues against; the second offers evidence that supports the analyst's position.

(C) The first is a position that the policy analyst argues against; the second is the position that the analyst defends.

(D) The first is a generalization that the policy analyst accepts as accurate and is used as the basis for an opinion that the analyst rejects; the second is a consideration used to defend the analyst's position.

(E) The first is a generalization that the policy analyst accepts as accurate and is used as the basis for the analyst's position; the second offers another consideration used to defend that position.

Bunuel · Accepted Answer

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

The conclusion of the policy analyst is that the experts' recommendation—to eliminate every government agency after 10 years and create it anew—is impractical. The first bold-faced statement, the generalization that government agencies become less effective over time, is used as evidence to support the experts' position. The second bold-faced statement, the observation that certain governmental agencies cannot afford even temporary upheaval, is used to defend the analyst's position.

(A) This choice correctly states that the first bold-faced statement offers evidence in support of an opinion (the experts') that the policy analyst rejects. However, the second bold-faced statement does not contradict the premise that government agencies lose their effectiveness over time. Instead, the second bold-faced statement simply offers another observation—that certain government agencies cannot afford even temporary upheaval.

(B) This choice correctly states that the second bold-faced statement offers evidence in support of the policy analyst's position. Additionally, it is true that the first bold-faced statement is a premise that the policy analyst accepts. However, the analyst does not argue against this premise; instead, the analyst argues against the experts' position, which is based on this premise.

(C) The first bold-faced statement is not a position that the policy analyst argues against; in fact, the first bold-faced statement is one that the analyst accepts as true. Moreover, the second bold-faced statement is not the policy analyst's position; it is evidence offered in support of the analyst's position, which is that the experts' recommendation is impractical.

(D) CORRECT.  The first bold-faced statement, the fact that government agencies become less effective over time, is accepted by the policy analyst as true and yet is used as evidence to support the experts' position, which the policy analyst rejects. The second bold-faced statement, the observation that certain government agencies cannot afford even temporary upheaval, is used to defend the analyst's position.

(E) This choice correctly states that the second bold-faced statement offers a consideration in support of the policy analyst's position. It is also true that the first bold-faced statement is a generalization that the policy analyst accepts as accurate. However, the first bold-faced statement is not used as the basis for the analyst's position; it is used as the basis for the experts' position.

ykaiim · Answer

IMO B. The first is a premise which is the analyst refuts at the end. Second BF is given evidence for that position.

Please post the OA.

gmatjon · Answer

IMO D,

IMO B is wrong because analyst is not arguing against the premise that most government agencies become less effective overtime. He is arguing that although they become ineffective, they can not be eliminated and renewed, since some government agencies are crucial for national security. Thus, he still thinks that most government agencies are less effective overtime, but he thinks, unfortunately, they can not be eliminated and recreated.

krishnasty · Answer

Guys, help me out with this...if the correct OA is D, it states that the policy analyst accepts the statment in the first bold faced statement. But if we see tha passage, nowhere it's implied that the analyst is accepting the first statment. He/she is just stating the facts what ppl believe. Shouldnt B win here??

naveen1003 · Answer

B) states that the  first is a premise that analyst accepts  but argues against. First of all this also says that analyst accepts the premise. Secondly, Analyst doesn't argue against the first boldface. Nowhere it says that Government Agencies don't become left effective over time. 
Experts form an opinion (agencies should be eliminated and created anew...) on basis of this premise and analyst argues against that opinion. (Not the premise)
I hope its clear...

raghavakumar85 · Answer

D. The first is a generalization that the   policy analyst accepts as accurate   and is   used as the basis for an 
opinion that the analyst rejects  ; the second is a consideration used to defend the analyst's position.

It is nowhere mentioned that the policy analyst accepts the first sentence as accurate. However, the whole passage is nothing but series of statements made by the analyst. He has never mentioned that that first point is inaccurate/invalid etc. Nonetheless, this is implicit from the passage as a whole. Even in the second bold phrase, the analyst attacks the suggestion made by other recommendations, but doesn't go against the first bold phrase.

The red bold phrase in the option D is the key to the correct answer. With the help of first statement, analyst explained more about what others feel about the agencies (about shutting them down). and the analyst rejects this by saying 'However, this is impractical'. If you found this, you're almost down to the correct answer.

jlgdr · Answer

Has to be (D) but let me tell you this is a tough question boy. The second bold is clearly the premise. Now, the key in this question is to recognize what is the analyst arguing against. It is kinda like those describe the argument type of questions, but lets not get confused by those. So going back to my point, we need to know that this a used as support for something that is argued against. We are not arguing the fact that most government agencies become less effective, we are arguing against the recommendation to fire all these poor guys and replace them every certain time. So keep that in mind folks, and you'll be ok. Cheers J

GMAT888 · Answer

It's D for sure. Analyst acknowledges the information upon which a hypothesis is suggested which analyst rejects. Then he offers a piece of information to support his claim. ->>> D.

sillyboy · Answer

+1 D.

The first is a generalization that the policy analyst accepts as accurate and is used as the basis for an opinion that the analyst rejects; the second is a consideration used to defend the analyst's position.

gvij2017 · Answer

Below argument written by policy analyst. Here is my analysis if argument.

Most government agencies become less effective over time.: A general truth on which policy analyst is agreed with.

Some experts ( New character) go so far as to recommend that every agency be eliminated after 10 years and created anew by replacing all of its existing personnel and revamping its bureaucratic structure.: A recommendation by some experts.

However (a contrast marker) , this policy would be impractical:- conclusion by policy analyst. 
since ( reason marker) certain government agencies perform vital functions, such as protecting national security, and therefore cannot afford even temporary upheaval.: explanation for conclusion of policy analyst.

Going with above, D is answer.

Let me know if something wrong with my elucidation.

nikkimah · Answer

In option choice B - how do we know that the second boldface sentence is an evidence - is this a fact or a general opinion/ belief?
I am finding it difficult to distinguish between a Fact/evidence and a belief/opinion. Can someone please guide here?

GMATNinja   karishma  @E-GMAT

Thanks

DmitryFarberMPrep · Answer

Generally, if the author simply says something is true and doesn't provide any further for that statement, we consider it a fact. If they base something they say on a fact elsewhere in the text, then that new statement is typically a conclusion, which is by definition an opinion.

However, we have to use a little judgment. Is the unsupported statement something that  can  be a fact? What if I say something like "Fred is untrustworthy" or "Jazz is better than hip-hop"? If these statements are used to support a later conclusion, we might still treat them as premises, but we might not call them facts/evidence. We'd be more likely to call them claims.

So let's run through the original argument piece by piece:

Most government agencies become less effective over time   . This could feel like an opinion. Who is the author to say what's effective? But then again, maybe it's been proven in some measurable way. To know how to treat this one, we'll have to see how it's used in the argument.

Some experts go so far as to recommend that every agency be eliminated after 10 years and created anew by replacing all of its existing personnel and revamping its bureaucratic structure.  Aha, now we see someone drawing a conclusion on the basis of the last sentence. So it's being treated as evidence, but so far the  author  hasn't based a conclusion on it. So it looks like support for a counterargument.

However, this policy would be impractical  Here, the author is directly stating their own opinion. It isn't a fact, in part because it doesn't sound like a fact (it's an assessment of the likely effect of a hypothetical change) and in part because the word SINCE in the next part of the sentence links this conclusion to its supporting premise.

since     certain government agencies perform vital functions, such as protecting national security, and therefore cannot afford even temporary upheaval.  This is the only support the author gives for their conclusion, so it's definitely a premise. Sure, we could argue about whether it's definitely true (do we agree that all these functions are vital?), but the author is treating it as a true statement that supports their conclusion.

So the overall structure looks like this: 
 *Fact used to support counter-argument (a.k.a. counter-premise) 
 *Counter-argument 
 *Conclusion 
 *Premise (factual)

Looking at only the second half, we could cut all but B and D. We can call the second bold evidence or a consideration, but it doesn't contradict any other evidence, it isn't a position, and there's no other premise than this one.

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

Policy analyst: Most government agencies become less effective over ti

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

Policy analyst: Most government agencies become less effective over ti

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