fireagablast wrote:
I understand that this is a common GMAT trope with weaken, specifically that the answer is an alternate explanation to the arguments conclusion.
My issue with this specific question is that the answer provided does not provide a direct alternative explanation.
Yes, it's fully possible that investment in education and job training promotes economic growth, but the prompt provides no correlative implication that this is the case. We are simply supposed to assume that "duh more education and training means better economy always" even though that may not always be the case in reality nor, again, is there any suggestion that this is explicitly true in the prompt.
There's more than one GMAT official problem where reliance on reader-crafted stories/assumptions such as the one required here wind up leading the user to the wrong answer.
How are you supposed to tell when it's appropriate and not, especially given the case where the narrative required for the answer isn't implicated in the prompt?
Great question, and understanding the answer to your question is key to GMAT Critical Reasoning success.
The answer is that we can use common knowledge and make direct common-sense connections between ideas but must avoid taking unsupported steps to connect ideas.
For example, if an answer choice says, "The new airplane paint weighs less than any other type of airplane paint," we can use common knowledge and make a common sense connection between the use of the new paint and airplanes using less fuel because it's logical that planes that weigh less would use less fuel. Weighing less and using less fuel are directly connected logically without other variables coming into play.
On the other hand, we have to avoid taking unsupported steps to conclusions such as that airlines that use airplane paint that weights less will have the happiest employees because using the paint will save the airlines money, some of which they will use to pay their employees more. After all, we don't know the cost of the paint, how long the paint lasts, whether airlines that use the paint will indeed direct money saved toward employee compensation, etc. All those other variables are at play in the scenario. So, going from "uses paint that weighs less" to "the happiest employees" requires unsupported steps.
In the case of this question, there is a direct logical connection between "invest the most in education and job training" and "highest economic growth." After all, we can use common sense and common knowledge to determine that investing in education and job training would logically cause economic growth.
At the same time, unlike what you said, we don't have to decide that "more education and training means better economy
always." It doesn't have to be the case that education and training always leads to economic growth.
Rather, to answer the question, we need a statement that COULD explain why "This fact does not show that environmental regulations promote growth." Thus, since choice (A) provides a reason why it MAY be that it is not the case that "environmental regulations promote growth," choice (A) does what we need.
In general, to weaken the case for a conclusion, we need information that merely shows why it may not be correct. We don't need information that demonstrates definitively that it's not correct.
_________________
Perfect Scoring Tutor With Over a Decade of Experience
MartyMurrayCoaching.comContact me for a free consultation.