|
|
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.
03 Aug 2020, 19:40
Kudos
Bookmarks
The following appeared in the editorial section of a local newspaper:
"In the first four years that Montoya has served as mayor of the city of San Perdito, the population has decreased and the unemployment rate has increased. Two businesses have closed for each new business that has opened. Under Varro, who served as mayor for four years before Montoya, the unemployment rate decreased and the population increased. Clearly, the residents of San Perdito would be best served if they voted Montoya out of office and reelected Varro."
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this argument, the author asserts that the residents of San Perdito would be best served if they voted Montoya out of office and reelected Varro. To substantiate this argument, the author bolsters his conclusion with evidence that in the first four years that Montoya has served as mayor of the city, the population has decreased and the unemployment rate has increased. Therefore, two businesses have closed for each new business. However Under Varro, who served as mayor before Montoya, the unemployment rate decreased and the population increased. At first glance, the author’s argument appears to be somewhat convincing, but close scrutiny reveals that the line of reasoning employed is invalid and hence the conclusion of the argument is probably misleading due to several critical logic flaws. In short, the analysis does not lend strong support to the author’s claim, and lack of credibility in reasoning makes the conclusion problematic. Mainly, this argument suffers from causality issues and biased premise issue.
First, the author fails to consider other factors that might cause the two opposite phenomenon cited. There is possibility that the two negative incidents might caused by different origin, such as natural disasters or a new rise of epidemic, things that the human being can not control, other than reign of Montoya. In a same vein, the two positive events might occurred by other source. For instance, they might be a belated proceeds that the previous mayor had persuaded, or Varro happened to be a mayor just after the end of the recession. Therefore, to strengthen the author’s conclusion that Montoya should voted out, and that Varro should be reelected, he should offer further information that will exclude other factors to justify his recommendation.
Second, the author omits to acknowledge it is evenly likely that the two distinct phenomenon caused Montoya and Varro to be the mayor rather than Montoya and Varro caused the two distinct phenomenon. In other words, Montoya might elected as mayor to remedy the undergoing pessimistic situation of the city, and Varro might elected in the reign of peace of the city. This aspects demonstrate well that Montoya might be a better ruler than Varro. Therefore, the author’s claim that Varro would serve the city better than Montoya is questionable. To buttress this claim, the author should compare and offer specific statistics of the city’s economic states when those two were elected.
Third, The author offers biased information, presenting only the piece of each mayor’s side. Namely, the author exploit the early state of Montoya’s reign and late state of Varro’s reign. However, this evidence only weakens his conclusion, or even worse, it can backfire and make adverse effect to the author’s claim. Therefore, the author should provide transparent evidence of both side, or, if it is not helping to support the contention, he should seek another evidence to substantiate.
To sum up, the author fails to provide adequate justification for this assumption. Scilicet, the logical reasoning is questionable with several mistakes. Therefore, to bolster his conclusion, the author should include the above-mentioned assumptions as additional evidence. If so, the argument would be much more persuasive.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you in advance !
"In the first four years that Montoya has served as mayor of the city of San Perdito, the population has decreased and the unemployment rate has increased. Two businesses have closed for each new business that has opened. Under Varro, who served as mayor for four years before Montoya, the unemployment rate decreased and the population increased. Clearly, the residents of San Perdito would be best served if they voted Montoya out of office and reelected Varro."
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this argument, the author asserts that the residents of San Perdito would be best served if they voted Montoya out of office and reelected Varro. To substantiate this argument, the author bolsters his conclusion with evidence that in the first four years that Montoya has served as mayor of the city, the population has decreased and the unemployment rate has increased. Therefore, two businesses have closed for each new business. However Under Varro, who served as mayor before Montoya, the unemployment rate decreased and the population increased. At first glance, the author’s argument appears to be somewhat convincing, but close scrutiny reveals that the line of reasoning employed is invalid and hence the conclusion of the argument is probably misleading due to several critical logic flaws. In short, the analysis does not lend strong support to the author’s claim, and lack of credibility in reasoning makes the conclusion problematic. Mainly, this argument suffers from causality issues and biased premise issue.
First, the author fails to consider other factors that might cause the two opposite phenomenon cited. There is possibility that the two negative incidents might caused by different origin, such as natural disasters or a new rise of epidemic, things that the human being can not control, other than reign of Montoya. In a same vein, the two positive events might occurred by other source. For instance, they might be a belated proceeds that the previous mayor had persuaded, or Varro happened to be a mayor just after the end of the recession. Therefore, to strengthen the author’s conclusion that Montoya should voted out, and that Varro should be reelected, he should offer further information that will exclude other factors to justify his recommendation.
Second, the author omits to acknowledge it is evenly likely that the two distinct phenomenon caused Montoya and Varro to be the mayor rather than Montoya and Varro caused the two distinct phenomenon. In other words, Montoya might elected as mayor to remedy the undergoing pessimistic situation of the city, and Varro might elected in the reign of peace of the city. This aspects demonstrate well that Montoya might be a better ruler than Varro. Therefore, the author’s claim that Varro would serve the city better than Montoya is questionable. To buttress this claim, the author should compare and offer specific statistics of the city’s economic states when those two were elected.
Third, The author offers biased information, presenting only the piece of each mayor’s side. Namely, the author exploit the early state of Montoya’s reign and late state of Varro’s reign. However, this evidence only weakens his conclusion, or even worse, it can backfire and make adverse effect to the author’s claim. Therefore, the author should provide transparent evidence of both side, or, if it is not helping to support the contention, he should seek another evidence to substantiate.
To sum up, the author fails to provide adequate justification for this assumption. Scilicet, the logical reasoning is questionable with several mistakes. Therefore, to bolster his conclusion, the author should include the above-mentioned assumptions as additional evidence. If so, the argument would be much more persuasive.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you in advance !
Moderators:
188 posts
