Wide dissemination of wireless networks in cities is a practical way to meet the needs of city households, schools and businesses. Rural communities have found that wireless networks are both more reliable and cheaper than land-based networks.

Which of the following would most likely be cited by a supporter of the argument?


A. Urban areas do not pose additional problems for the effective operation of wireless networks.

B. Wireless networks work far better where population density is low.

C. Iceland, a very rural country, successfully uses wireless networks.

D. The expenses of wireless transmission in areas with large buildings is much higher.

E. Poor neighborhoods have less access to cable internet than do educators or businesses.


_________________

IMO: A. We are asked to pick a choice that a supporter of the conclusion will endorse. The passage concludes that deploying wireless networks is advantageous. So, a supporter of this conclusion will only talk about the advantages and not mention the disadvantages. Which of the choices support wireless networks? Choice A.
_________________

A. The answer to the question must support the point that wireless networks should be used in even urban areas.

premise:Wide dissemination of wireless networks in cities is a practical way to meet the needs of city households, schools and businesses.

Another Premise talks about the benefits of wireless networks in rural areas.

The supporter of the argument would most likely agree that even in urban areas they can be successfully implemented and can be benefitted.

Two or three things to consider, firstly in such instances more than premise and conclusion identification it is more Imp to understand what the argument is stating, secondly automatically eliminate those answers where one of the premises are being weakened. Concentrate on the answer choice which strengthens either both or doesn't weaken both. A meets that criteria.

Posted from GMAT ToolKit

I don't think scope matters here. We are bringing outside information "in" to strengthen the argument.

The much much bigger issue is the weakening, which you discussed.

Posted from my mobile device

HERE IS OE

The conclusion of this argument is: Wide dissemination of wireless networks in cities is a practical way to meet the needs of city households, schools and businesses.
The premise of the argument is: Rural communities have found that wireless networks are both more reliable and cheaper than land-based networks.

Thus, we are concluding that wireless networks will meet the needs of cities because they have met the needs of rural communities. The assumption we must make is that rural areas and cities are comparable in terms of our ability to implement these networks and make them work.

We are asked to choose an answer choice that strengthens the argument. A supporter of the argument will affirm this assumption. Answer choice A does this nicely.

Answer choice B actually goes AGAINST the conclusion--it says that wireless networks work much better in areas where population is low. Thus, it casts doubt on the idea that wireless networks will be a good solution for cities.

The argument claims that wide dissemination of wireless access is now a practical way to meet urban needs, based on the evidence of its successful use in rural areas. The author then must assume that urban areas provide no additional problems for wireless use.

(A) CORRECT. This choice confirms an assumption of the argument and thus strengthens the conclusion.

(B) This choice weakens the argument because it damages the assumption that urban areas pose no extra problems for wireless use.

(C) This choice is irrelevant because it provides information about another rural area; however, the conclusion concerns urban areas.

(D) This choice weakens the argument because it damages the assumption that urban areas pose no extra problems for wireless use.

(E) This choice is an irrelevant distinction. The argument mentioned all three groups as in need of this service. The suggestion that one group needs it more than the others is irrelevant to the conclusion.
_________________

oh wow..really? 700 lvl? looks more like a 600 to me..
we need to provide evidence that wireless is better than land-based.
in order to do so..I immediately thought about a possible weakener..what if quality of internet is not the same? thus, a negation of this statement would be a good strengthener..

A - looks good..
B - so what? does it support the argument? NO. out.
C - out of scope
D - cost of the installation is out of scope.
E - comparison between households and schools/business - out of scope.

as we can see..only A stands.

Hi,

Thank you for posting such a good question. After reading the comments I think I did not understand the argument. My understanding was : Wireless network successful in cities and now rural areas are also finding several benefits but I think what author meant was vice versa . Please help me in understanding this argument. . Would really appreciate it.

Also is it ok to practice GMAT questions from sources other OG ?? . I find this question format quite different. Please advise.

Regards
Megha

The conditions in Iceland may not be same as conditions in the villages where wireless networks are being considered. Therefore this reasoning in not a very strong supporter for the argument. Nonetheless option C does have a weak support for the argument, but the support provided by option A is stronger and hence better.

Negate both statement and see which one weakens the argument more. Negativng option A weakens the argument, almost to the point of breaking it down. Negating option C weakens as well, but generalising from one example is not a severe weakener (or a strengthener).

Dissemination :- the act of spreading something, especially information, widely; circulation.
The argument claims that wide dissemination of wireless access is now a practical way to meet urban needs, based on the evidence of its successful use in rural areas. The author then must assume that urban areas provide no additional problems for wireless use.
A supporter would cite something that bolsters the argument.

Conclusion - Wide dissemination of wireless networks in cities is a practical way to meet the needs of city households, schools and businesses
Premise - Rural communities have found that wireless networks are both more reliable and cheaper than land-based networks.

One can 'directionally' prephrase the answer, we have to prove that wireless dissemination in cities is a good idea and the evidence given to support it is that it works well in rural areas, if somehow we can link the rural wireless effectiveness to the urban setting we are good to go!

Moving to the answer choices.
A - Good! Makes the connection between rural and urban conditions. Mark as a contender
B - Oops! If wireless works better in low density areas (aka rural areas) it is a problem, because cities might not be low density areas. Hence reject.
C - Great that Iceland uses wireless and it is rural but it still misses the rural to urban connect. Hence reject.
D - Nah! If this is true wireless in cities not a good idea.
E - The argument is not about rich or poor neighborhoods, it is about wireless in cities. This choice is way off the mark.

Hence A.
_________________