Analyse arg str - MGMAT question bank CR #18 Drug Trad

[Rag]

The fight against the drug trade in Country X should focus for the time being on tightening the country’s borders and targeting its major smugglers. Wiping out poppy fields in rural areas means even greater hardship for an economically depressed farming population. Rather, the United Nations and the government of Country X must carefully rebuild agricultural infrastructure in areas where the economy depends on these poppy fields.

What purpose do the two boldface sentences serve in the passage?


The first is the conclusion drawn by the speaker; the second is the alternative to that conclusion.
The first is a short-term solution to a problem; the second is a long-term solution to the same problem.
The first presents a problem; the second poses an ideal solution to the problem.
The first presents a popular solution to a problem; the second presents a solution preferred by the author.
The first presents an argument; the second presents evidence to support the argument.

The correct answer is b

I am having a terrible time with CR questions. Particularly with analyzing argument structure. Can you help with an approach to this?

[JonathanSchneider]

Can you please be more specific? What exactly is the difficulty you face? Anything from the book that you're not understanding?

[netcaesar]

Can anyone explain what is the conclusion of this argument? I do not understand the structure

[JonathanSchneider]

In a way, you could argue that both bold statements are conclusions, but the second lends support to the first. Basically, the structure is:

Here is what we should do
Here is what we've been doing
But that is wrong because we should do something else instead.

As such, the "Here is what we should do" is the larger claim (even though it focuses on the short-term). The "But that is wrong because..." gives weight to that first claim. More importantly, though, the right choice does not even require you to identify one bold face as the claim, but rather to recognize each bold face for its specific purpose.

[netcaesar]

How can relate the short term and long term solution with the text?

How can you find that "The first is a short-term solution to a problem; the second is a long-term solution to the same problem".

Many times all answers are wrong for me and I can not find the less wrong in order to pick an answer.

What should I do in these cases? Any advice?

[JonathanSchneider]

I sympathize with the "all the options look bad" feeling, as I faced that myself when I started studying for the GMAT. When you encounter this feeling, make a note of it. After finding a few problems where you feel this way, you might be able to draw some connections. AKA are you eliminating certain types of right answers unnecessarily? If so, what kind?

In this particular case, we know that the first bold is a "short-term" solution because it says "for the time being." The second bold, which talks about building an infrastructure, can be seen to be "long-term" by its very nature: building such an infrastructure would be slow.

[fayea395]

I sympathize with the "all the options look bad" feeling, as I faced that myself when I started studying for the GMAT. When you encounter this feeling, make a note of it. After finding a few problems where you feel this way, you might be able to draw some connections. AKA are you eliminating certain types of right answers unnecessarily? If so, what kind?

In this particular case, we know that the first bold is a "short-term" solution because it says "for the time being." The second bold, which talks about building an infrastructure, can be seen to be "long-term" by its very nature: building such an infrastructure would be slow.

I had chosen A since B says the 2nd boldface is the long-term solution TO THE SAME PROBLEM.

In the stimulus though, it looks like 2 different problems - the first is on the drug trade, the 2nd is on helping the "economically depressed farming population". Thus chose A in the end.

Further, the 2nd Boldface does technically give an alternative solution, in fact saying what they should do instead.

Would you be able to help clarify Jonathan?

[tim]

The second boldface portion does not give an alternative to the first boldfaced portion; it gives an alternative to the non-bold portion. The problem is the drug trade. Both boldface sections give solutions to the problem, one short term and one long term.

[JbhB682]

I too chose A over B unfortunately

Q1) Are BF1 and BF2 not conclusions at all in that case ? OA : B, suggests BF 1 and BF 2 are solutions ( I though solutions CANNOT be be conclusions ?)

---------------------------------

Q2) I figured BF 2 was a " Claim ", but when i tried connecting it to BF 1 (using the therefore test) or connecting it to the previous sentence -- i just could not unfortunately connect BF 2 to either BF 1 nor connect BF 2 to the previous sentence.

Just wondering, how do you go about "connecting" BF2 to BF 1 or connecting BF 2 to the previous sentence

Thank you !

[esledge]

I too chose A over B unfortunately

Q1) Are BF1 and BF2 not conclusions at all in that case ? OA : B, suggests BF 1 and BF 2 are solutions ( I though solutions CANNOT be be conclusions ?)

---------------------------------

Q2) I figured BF 2 was a " Claim ", but when i tried connecting it to BF 1 (using the therefore test) or connecting it to the previous sentence -- i just could not unfortunately connect BF 2 to either BF 1 nor connect BF 2 to the previous sentence.

Just wondering, how do you go about "connecting" BF2 to BF 1 or connecting BF 2 to the previous sentence

Thank you !

This one is tricky, and I think in a way BF1 and BF2 are (together) one big conclusion, but I wouldn’t deal with that at first. Sentence-by-sentence, here’s the structure:
(1) Opinion (“should focus”)
(2) Fact? It’s a cause/effect that the author presents as true, anyway.
(3) Opinion (“must carefully rebuild”) in contrast to #2 (“rather”).

In some arguments with opinion, fact, opinion structure, one of the opinions is supported by the other two parts, so it’s the conclusion. That’s not so clear here, so I’d probably go to the choices and see what I could eliminate first. My process would look like this, as I tend to "work vertically" through the choices.

Based on FB1 only, I’d keep (A), (B), and (E), because “conclusion,” “solution to a problem,” and “argument” all accurately describe the first sentence.

Then based on FB2, the only options are alternative conclusion, different solution/same problem, or evidence (for FB1).

Eliminate (E) because BF2 is opinion, not evidence. And BF2 doesn’t support BF1 anyway.

In (A), an “alternative to that [FB1] conclusion” would have to be more opposite to FB1, I think. Something like “don’t tighten the borders” or “target minor smugglers, as they are easier to apprehend.” I think the writers want people to see "Rather" in FB2 and think that it indicates an alternative of FB1, but the "Rather" indicated a contrast with the middle, non-bold sentence. Eliminate (B).

Both FB1 and FB2 are opinions about what to do. So (B) works: same problem (drug trade), with different solutions for it, one for “the time being” and the other a (presumably longer) “careful(ly) rebuild” process.

[JbhB682]

Hi Emily - what in BF 2 specifically says this a solution to the "DRUG PROBLEM" specifically ?

When I read BF 2 -- i thought it was NOT a solution to "DRUG problem" but a solution instead to the "economically depressed farming population" [the recomendations in BF 2 is to help economically depressed farmers get out of poverty]

How were you able to decide if BF 2 is a solution to which problem

[esledge]

If you were given BF2 in isolation, you would have no way to know this had anything to do with drugs.

So, while you need to look at the primary role of each sentence in boldface questions, you still have to think about the argument holistically. For example, "rather" in BF2 suggests a contrast with the 2nd (not bold) sentence, which itself (a plan the author doesn't endorse) is in contrast to BF1 (the plan the author endorses). These aren't 3 totally separate ideas; they are not meant to stand alone.

You mention 2 different problems, and even those are related. Here's another argument paraphrase/outline:
BF1: To fight the drug trade, focus on borders and smugglers (problem and suggested short term solution)
2nd sentence: Wiping out poppies causes "even greater" (of the existing) problems! (anti-solution)
BF2: Rather, rebuild agriculture to help the economy. (a longer-term solution)