by: Bunuel
18 mins
Events & Promotions
|
|
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized
for You
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Sep 1507:00 PM EDT
-09:00 PM EST
Elite scores are possible when you enroll in a powerful GMAT course, taught live online + 6 months access to TTP OnDemand video courses included! Class starts Tues/Thurs Sept. 15, 2026 - Nov. 15, 2027, 7:00pm-9:00pm EST
Sep 2107:00 PM EDT
-10:00 PM EDT
Boost your GMAT score in less than one month in a live online class + 6 months access to TTP OnDemand video courses included! Class starts Mon, Tues, Wed, Thur, Fri Sept. 21, 2026 - Oct. 9, 2027, 7:00pm-10:00pm EST
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
25%
(medium)
Question Stats:
76% (01:32) correct
24%
(01:47)
wrong
based on 1679
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Contrary to the charges made by some of its opponents, the provisions of the new deficit-reduction law for indiscriminate cuts in the federal budget are justified. Opponents should remember that the New Deal pulled this country out of great economic troubles even though some of its programs were later found to be unconstitutional.
The opponents could effectively defend their position against the author’s strategy by pointing out that
(A) the expertise of those opposing the law is outstanding
(B) the lack of justification for the new law does not imply that those who drew it up were either inept or immoral
(C) the practical application of the new law will not entail indiscriminate budget cuts
(D) economic troubles present at the time of the New Deal were equal in severity to those that have led to the present law
(E) the fact that certain flawed programs or laws have improved the economy does not prove that every such program can do so
_________________
The opponents could effectively defend their position against the author’s strategy by pointing out that
(A) the expertise of those opposing the law is outstanding
(B) the lack of justification for the new law does not imply that those who drew it up were either inept or immoral
(C) the practical application of the new law will not entail indiscriminate budget cuts
(D) economic troubles present at the time of the New Deal were equal in severity to those that have led to the present law
(E) the fact that certain flawed programs or laws have improved the economy does not prove that every such program can do so
If this question felt shaky,
try an adaptive mini quiz of similar problems in
GMAT Club Forum Quiz →. Free plan gives 5 questions per day.
_________________
New to the GMAT Club?
- • Questions: Question Bank | Bunuel's Signature Collection
• Tests: GMAT Club Tests | Forum Quiz
• Guides: Quantitative | Critical Reasoning | Reading Comprehension | Ultimate Quant Guide | All You Need for Quant
• Rules: Quantitative | Verbal
sandman13
Joined: 20 Apr 2018
Last visit: 26 Dec 2019
Posts: 132
Concentration: Technology, Nonprofit
Schools: ISB '21 (A)
WE:Analyst (Non-Profit and Government)
Schools: ISB '21 (A)
Posts: 132
This is one of those classic GMAT problems. The argument type is X has happened in the past, so X will happen again.
Here the weakener is that X may not happen this time. This is what choice E essentially states.
Answer: E
Here the weakener is that X may not happen this time. This is what choice E essentially states.
Answer: E
General Discussion
redskull1
Joined: 11 Feb 2018
Last visit: 25 Sep 2022
Posts: 287
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Finance
Schools: Stern '22 (WA) Booth '22 (D) Tuck '22 (D) Tepper '22 (A) Kenan-Flagler '22 (A$) Jones '22 (A$) INSEAD Jan'21 Intake Duke '22 (M$)
GMAT 1: 690 Q47 V37
GMAT 2: 710 Q50 V36
GMAT 3: 750 Q50 V42
Products:
Schools: Stern '22 (WA) Booth '22 (D) Tuck '22 (D) Tepper '22 (A) Kenan-Flagler '22 (A$) Jones '22 (A$) INSEAD Jan'21 Intake Duke '22 (M$)
GMAT 3: 750 Q50 V42
Posts: 287
Nope.Think its D.We are talking about THIS PARTICULAR LAW.Hence E is out of scope.Also the argument is telling us that this law pulled them out of bad times.hence not E.Not 100% happy with D but.”at the time of the new deal” does not strictly imply AFTER the new deal.But D is the best of the lot.Will be interesting to see the OA and OE
Posted from my mobile device
Posted from my mobile device
Contrary to the charges made by some of its opponents, the provisions of the new deficit-reduction law for indiscriminate cuts in the federal budget are justified. Opponents should remember that the New Deal pulled this country out of great economic troubles even though some of its programs were later found to be unconstitutional.
The opponents could effectively defend their position against the author’s strategy by pointing out that
(A) the expertise of those opposing the law is outstanding
This is no ground for defending an argument. Drop it.
(B) the lack of justification for the new law does not imply that those who drew it up were either inept or immoral
Irrelevant. Drop it.
(C) the practical application of the new law will not entail indiscriminate budget cuts
It already is doing so. irrelevant. Drop it.
(D) economic troubles present at the time of the New Deal were equal in severity to those that have led to the present law
Goes against the opponents. Drop it
(E) the fact that certain flawed programs or laws have improved the economy does not prove that every such program can do so
Perfect. Something flawed has beneficial in the past does not mean that it will again necessarily do so.
Answer: E
The opponents could effectively defend their position against the author’s strategy by pointing out that
(A) the expertise of those opposing the law is outstanding
This is no ground for defending an argument. Drop it.
(B) the lack of justification for the new law does not imply that those who drew it up were either inept or immoral
Irrelevant. Drop it.
(C) the practical application of the new law will not entail indiscriminate budget cuts
It already is doing so. irrelevant. Drop it.
(D) economic troubles present at the time of the New Deal were equal in severity to those that have led to the present law
Goes against the opponents. Drop it
(E) the fact that certain flawed programs or laws have improved the economy does not prove that every such program can do so
Perfect. Something flawed has beneficial in the past does not mean that it will again necessarily do so.
Answer: E
sandysilva
Joined: 30 Dec 2016
Last visit: 23 Apr 2019
Posts: 190
GMAT 1: 650 Q42 V37
GPA: 4
WE:Business Development (Other)
Products:
GmatDaddy
Hi. I guess you wish to choose E but typed D.
When you answer questions late at night, this is what you do !!
Thanks for pointing it out !!
Thanks for pointing it out !!
sandysilva
Posts: 457
Type: weaken the author's argument.
Author's argument: the provisions of the new deficit-reduction law for indiscriminate cuts in the federal budget are justified.
Evidence used by the author: the New Deal (a totally different law from the deficit-reduction law) pulled this country out of great economic troubles even though some of its programs were later found to be unconstitutional.
(A) the expertise of those opposing the law is outstanding
(B) the lack of justification for the new law does not imply that those who drew it up were either inept or immoral
(C) the practical application of the new law will not entail indiscriminate budget cuts
(D) economic troubles present at the time of the New Deal were equal in severity to those that have led to the present law
(E) the fact that certain flawed programs or laws have improved the economy does not prove that every such program can do so - this would certainly weaken the use of evidence by the author since we can infer from (E) that what is true of a past event need not be true for the present event. Hence, (E) is the right answer choice.
Author's argument: the provisions of the new deficit-reduction law for indiscriminate cuts in the federal budget are justified.
Evidence used by the author: the New Deal (a totally different law from the deficit-reduction law) pulled this country out of great economic troubles even though some of its programs were later found to be unconstitutional.
(A) the expertise of those opposing the law is outstanding
(B) the lack of justification for the new law does not imply that those who drew it up were either inept or immoral
(C) the practical application of the new law will not entail indiscriminate budget cuts
(D) economic troubles present at the time of the New Deal were equal in severity to those that have led to the present law
(E) the fact that certain flawed programs or laws have improved the economy does not prove that every such program can do so - this would certainly weaken the use of evidence by the author since we can infer from (E) that what is true of a past event need not be true for the present event. Hence, (E) is the right answer choice.
Contrary to the charges made by some of its opponents, the provisions of the new deficit-reduction law for indiscriminate cuts in the federal budget are justified. Opponents should remember that the New Deal pulled this country out of great economic troubles even though some of its programs were later found to be unconstitutional.
The opponents could effectively defend their position against the author’s strategy by pointing out that
(A) the expertise of those opposing the law is outstanding
(B) the lack of justification for the new law does not imply that those who drew it up were either inept or immoral
(C) the practical application of the new law will not entail indiscriminate budget cuts
(D) economic troubles present at the time of the New Deal were equal in severity to those that have led to the present law
(E) the fact that certain flawed programs or laws have improved the economy does not prove that every such program can do so
The opponents could effectively defend their position against the author’s strategy by pointing out that
(A) the expertise of those opposing the law is outstanding
(B) the lack of justification for the new law does not imply that those who drew it up were either inept or immoral
(C) the practical application of the new law will not entail indiscriminate budget cuts
(D) economic troubles present at the time of the New Deal were equal in severity to those that have led to the present law
(E) the fact that certain flawed programs or laws have improved the economy does not prove that every such program can do so
Azakura16
Joined: 17 May 2024
Last visit: 27 Dec 2025
Posts: 57
Location: United States (AR)
Schools: Booth '27 (I) LBS '26 (S) Said '27 (D)
GMAT Focus 1: 805 Q90 V90 DI90
GPA: 3.5
Products:
Quote:
Premise: The New Deal pulled this country out of great economic troubles, even though some of its programs were later found to be unconstitutional.
Conclusion: The provisions of the new deficit-reduction law for indiscriminate cuts in the budget are justified.
A. Not helpful. “I heard your points, but were you aware that I really know what I’m talking about,” isn’t a famously effective counter argument.
B. Irrelevant. No one is saying that anyone is inept or immoral.
C. This seems to argue with the definition of the deficit-reduction law, which doesn’t strengthen the opponents’ position.
D. This doesn’t help the opponents. If anything, it supports the author’s position.
E. This helps the opponents defend their position. The fact that a flawed program worked in the past is not a guarantee that a similarly flawed law will work now.
Best answer is E.
Moderators:
Announcements
Tuck at Dartmouth
AI at Dartmouth Tuck: How the School Is Preparing Leaders for the Age of Artificial Intelligence
Inside the courses, research, and hands-on learning defining wise, decisive leadership in an AI-driven world.
Read More
Inside the courses, research, and hands-on learning defining wise, decisive leadership in an AI-driven world.
Read More
Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos
Success stories and strategies from high-scoring candidates.