MGMAT CAT CR WEAKEN

[rishisbook]

Political Analyst: Because our city is a border city, illegal immigration is an important issue in the current race for mayor. Of the two candidates for mayor, one supports a plan that would attempt to deport the city’s 9,000 illegal immigrants and the other does not. Surveys consistently show that about 60% of the city’s residents are opposed to the plan, while about 35% are in support of the plan. Therefore, the candidate who does not support the plan will win the election for mayor.

All of the following statements weaken the analyst’s argument, EXCEPT:
A. In the city at issue, most voters make their voting decisions based on the candidates’ positions on abortion.
B. Of the 35% of residents who support the plan, some are willing to consider alternate plans for addressing illegal immigration.
C. Many of the residents who oppose the plan are not registered voters.
D. The candidate who supports the plan is the incumbent mayor, and has been elected to four consecutive terms despite taking controversial positions on many important issues.
E. Just under 30% of the city’s residents are illegal immigrants who cannot vote.

Confused between B & D.Correct answer is B as per CAT explanation guide.

What i wanted to ask is whether D can be justified as a correct answer. Isn't D too much outside the scope of argument.Instead of talking about votes and percentages stated in passage, the answer D states about things happened in the past which may not be relevant in the present. In doing so aren't we assuming things to be effective even now based on past relationships.

[jnelson0612]

Political Analyst: Because our city is a border city, illegal immigration is an important issue in the current race for mayor. Of the two candidates for mayor, one supports a plan that would attempt to deport the city’s 9,000 illegal immigrants and the other does not. Surveys consistently show that about 60% of the city’s residents are opposed to the plan, while about 35% are in support of the plan. Therefore, the candidate who does not support the plan will win the election for mayor.

All of the following statements weaken the analyst’s argument, EXCEPT:
A. In the city at issue, most voters make their voting decisions based on the candidates’ positions on abortion.
B. Of the 35% of residents who support the plan, some are willing to consider alternate plans for addressing illegal immigration.
C. Many of the residents who oppose the plan are not registered voters.
D. The candidate who supports the plan is the incumbent mayor, and has been elected to four consecutive terms despite taking controversial positions on many important issues.
E. Just under 30% of the city’s residents are illegal immigrants who cannot vote.

Confused between B & D.Correct answer is B as per CAT explanation guide.

What i wanted to ask is whether D can be justified as a correct answer. Isn't D too much outside the scope of argument.Instead of talking about votes and percentages stated in passage, the answer D states about things happened in the past which may not be relevant in the present. In doing so aren't we assuming things to be effective even now based on past relationships.

Let's break down this argument so we can understand why D does weaken:
Conclusion: The candidate who does not support the deportation plan will win the mayoral election.
Premise: One candidate has a deportation plan; the other does not. Of the city's residents, 60% oppose the deportation plan and 35% support it.
Assumption: People's beliefs about the deportation plan will determine how they vote in the election.

To weaken, we attack the assumption. We find that even though the mayor has had prior controversial opinions on issues he has been re-elected four times. Thus, clearly holding controversial opinions has not determined whether he could be elected, and people do not entirely vote on the basis of a candidate's position on controversial issues.. This attacks the assumption in the argument.

[Beatrice Michael]

Hi

Can you please explain hovv is E vvrong and B right- I did not follovv

Of the 35% of residents who support the plan, some are willing to consider alternate plans for addressing illegal immigration.

--> if some are vvilling to consider alernate plans then this means that they vvill support the mayor and he may vvin?

please explain B

Political Analyst: Because our city is a border city, illegal immigration is an important issue in the current race for mayor. Of the two candidates for mayor, one supports a plan that would attempt to deport the city’s 9,000 illegal immigrants and the other does not. Surveys consistently show that about 60% of the city’s residents are opposed to the plan, while about 35% are in support of the plan. Therefore, the candidate who does not support the plan will win the election for mayor.

All of the following statements weaken the analyst’s argument, EXCEPT:
A. In the city at issue, most voters make their voting decisions based on the candidates’ positions on abortion.
B. Of the 35% of residents who support the plan, some are willing to consider alternate plans for addressing illegal immigration.
C. Many of the residents who oppose the plan are not registered voters.
D. The candidate who supports the plan is the incumbent mayor, and has been elected to four consecutive terms despite taking controversial positions on many important issues.
E. Just under 30% of the city’s residents are illegal immigrants who cannot vote.

Confused between B & D.Correct answer is B as per CAT explanation guide.

What i wanted to ask is whether D can be justified as a correct answer. Isn't D too much outside the scope of argument.Instead of talking about votes and percentages stated in passage, the answer D states about things happened in the past which may not be relevant in the present. In doing so aren't we assuming things to be effective even now based on past relationships.

Let's break down this argument so we can understand why D does weaken:
Conclusion: The candidate who does not support the deportation plan will win the mayoral election.
Premise: One candidate has a deportation plan; the other does not. Of the voting populace, 60% oppose the deportation plan and 35% support it.
Assumption: People's beliefs about the deportation plan will determine how they vote in the election.

To weaken, we attack the assumption. We find that even though the mayor has had prior controversial opinions on issues he has been re-elected four times. Thus, clearly holding controversial opinions has not determined whether he could be elected, and people do not entirely vote on the basis of a candidate's position on controversial issues.. This attacks the assumption in the argument.

[jnelson0612]

Remember, this is a "weaken EXCEPT" question. We want to knock out four that weaken the analyst's argument and choose whatever is left. B actually strengthens the argument that the person who opposes the immigration plan will win. Let's review: most voters oppose the plan, and 35% support the plan. However, B says that people who support the plan are willing to consider other plans for immigration. Thus, these people may not vote solely on which mayoral candidate supports the plan, and may in fact vote for the candidate who opposes the plan.

[jnelson0612]

Regarding why E does in fact weaken the argument, let's deconstruct it again:
Conclusion: The candidate who does not support the deportation plan will win the mayoral election.
Premise: One candidate has a deportation plan; the other does not. Of the city's residents, 60% oppose the deportation plan and 35% support it.
Assumption: People's beliefs about the deportation plan will determine how they vote in the election.

We are ALSO assuming that the city's residents are eligible to vote, if we are assuming that the 60% and 35% mean something. But what if 30% of the city's population are illegal immigrants who can't vote? Those people certainly are going to oppose the deportation plan, because they don't want to be kicked out, but they can't vote for the mayor. Thus, when I take the illegal population of 30% out of the 60% of residents who oppose the plan, I come up with 30% oppose the plan and can vote and 35% support the plan. This weakens the idea that whoever opposes the plan will win the mayoral election.

[catennacio]

Regarding why E does in fact weaken the argument, let's deconstruct it again:
Conclusion: The candidate who does not support the deportation plan will win the mayoral election.
Premise: One candidate has a deportation plan; the other does not. Of the city's residents, 60% oppose the deportation plan and 35% support it.
Assumption: People's beliefs about the deportation plan will determine how they vote in the election.

We are ALSO assuming that the city's residents are eligible to vote, if we are assuming that the 60% and 35% mean something. But what if 30% of the city's population are illegal immigrants who can't vote? Those people certainly are going to oppose the deportation plan, because they don't want to be kicked out, but they can't vote for the mayor. Thus, when I take the illegal population of 30% out of the 60% of residents who oppose the plan, I come up with 30% oppose the plan and can vote and 35% support the plan. This weakens the idea that whoever opposes the plan will win the mayoral election.

I am undecided between B & E. I can't reason E because I don't know which side that 30% will fall/distribute into: could be in 60% opposers, in 35% supporters or in both portion.

As your reasoning above, the 30% of residents who cannot vote are falling into the 60% residents who oppose the plan, NOT into the 35% residents who support the plan. I know that there is a keyword "immigrant residents" in E, making it look like the 30% are illegal immigrants and therefore will oppose the plan. But by doing so, aren't we assuming that ALL illegal immigrants will ALWAYS oppose the plan (because they don't want to be kicked out)? Is it reasonable to assume so? In my own experience, I have seen people who are illegal immigrants and support a plan to clean up the illegals (but providing them good incentives such as new housing and some compensation).

If I face this kind of reasoning in the future, how would you suggest me to interpret it?

Again, talking about the Most Probable Interpretation...

Thanks...

[jnelson0612]

Regarding why E does in fact weaken the argument, let's deconstruct it again:
Conclusion: The candidate who does not support the deportation plan will win the mayoral election.
Premise: One candidate has a deportation plan; the other does not. Of the city's residents, 60% oppose the deportation plan and 35% support it.
Assumption: People's beliefs about the deportation plan will determine how they vote in the election.

We are ALSO assuming that the city's residents are eligible to vote, if we are assuming that the 60% and 35% mean something. But what if 30% of the city's population are illegal immigrants who can't vote? Those people certainly are going to oppose the deportation plan, because they don't want to be kicked out, but they can't vote for the mayor. Thus, when I take the illegal population of 30% out of the 60% of residents who oppose the plan, I come up with 30% oppose the plan and can vote and 35% support the plan. This weakens the idea that whoever opposes the plan will win the mayoral election.

I am undecided between B & E. I can't reason E because I don't know which side that 30% will fall/distribute into: could be in 60% opposers, in 35% supporters or in both portion.

As your reasoning above, the 30% of residents who cannot vote are falling into the 60% residents who oppose the plan, NOT into the 35% residents who support the plan. I know that there is a keyword "immigrant residents" in E, making it look like the 30% are illegal immigrants and therefore will oppose the plan. But by doing so, aren't we assuming that ALL illegal immigrants will ALWAYS oppose the plan (because they don't want to be kicked out)? Is it reasonable to assume so? In my own experience, I have seen people who are illegal immigrants and support a plan to clean up the illegals (but providing them good incentives such as new housing and some compensation).

If I face this kind of reasoning in the future, how would you suggest me to interpret it?

Again, talking about the Most Probable Interpretation...

Thanks...

In this case, you have to think about what is most logical and keep it as clean and simple as you can. It is indeed reasonable to assume that all or almost all of illegal immigrants would oppose the plan. They have immigrated to this location illegally. Clearly they went to some trouble to be where they are now. If they wanted to be elsewhere one would assume that they would leave. If I illegally immigrate somewhere is it logical that I would then support a plan that would cause me to be deported? Being deported is probably not a fun experience, and then I would no longer be in the place that I chose to live.

The only way they would WANT to be deported is if they immigrated to this place illegally and now want to leave but don't have the money to leave. Thus, there only way out is to be forcibly removed by the government. This is pretty wild speculation. We should stick with something more clean and logical: they came because they want to be here and will not support a plan to forcibly remove them.

Remember, the GMAT knows that you only have about two minutes per question. They won't make you come up with every possible crazy possibility, but only the most likely, logical ones. :-)

Oh yes, and to address part of what you said about illegals supporting immigration clean up as long as goodies such as housing are given, that's not what is happening here. The only thing that they will get is deported. So it's illogical that they would vote against their own self interest, and that's the kind of logic you can count on in the GMAT. They will have you assume that people will do things that bring some benefit to them. :-)

[catennacio]

Regarding why E does in fact weaken the argument, let's deconstruct it again:
Conclusion: The candidate who does not support the deportation plan will win the mayoral election.
Premise: One candidate has a deportation plan; the other does not. Of the city's residents, 60% oppose the deportation plan and 35% support it.
Assumption: People's beliefs about the deportation plan will determine how they vote in the election.

We are ALSO assuming that the city's residents are eligible to vote, if we are assuming that the 60% and 35% mean something. But what if 30% of the city's population are illegal immigrants who can't vote? Those people certainly are going to oppose the deportation plan, because they don't want to be kicked out, but they can't vote for the mayor. Thus, when I take the illegal population of 30% out of the 60% of residents who oppose the plan, I come up with 30% oppose the plan and can vote and 35% support the plan. This weakens the idea that whoever opposes the plan will win the mayoral election.

I am undecided between B & E. I can't reason E because I don't know which side that 30% will fall/distribute into: could be in 60% opposers, in 35% supporters or in both portion.

As your reasoning above, the 30% of residents who cannot vote are falling into the 60% residents who oppose the plan, NOT into the 35% residents who support the plan. I know that there is a keyword "immigrant residents" in E, making it look like the 30% are illegal immigrants and therefore will oppose the plan. But by doing so, aren't we assuming that ALL illegal immigrants will ALWAYS oppose the plan (because they don't want to be kicked out)? Is it reasonable to assume so? In my own experience, I have seen people who are illegal immigrants and support a plan to clean up the illegals (but providing them good incentives such as new housing and some compensation).

If I face this kind of reasoning in the future, how would you suggest me to interpret it?

Again, talking about the Most Probable Interpretation...

Thanks...

In this case, you have to think about what is most logical and keep it as clean and simple as you can. It is indeed reasonable to assume that all or almost all of illegal immigrants would oppose the plan. They have immigrated to this location illegally. Clearly they went to some trouble to be where they are now. If they wanted to be elsewhere one would assume that they would leave. If I illegally immigrate somewhere is it logical that I would then support a plan that would cause me to be deported? Being deported is probably not a fun experience, and then I would no longer be in the place that I chose to live.

The only way they would WANT to be deported is if they immigrated to this place illegally and now want to leave but don't have the money to leave. Thus, there only way out is to be forcibly removed by the government. This is pretty wild speculation. We should stick with something more clean and logical: they came because they want to be here and will not support a plan to forcibly remove them.

Remember, the GMAT knows that you only have about two minutes per question. They won't make you come up with every possible crazy possibility, but only the most likely, logical ones. :-)

Oh yes, and to address part of what you said about illegals supporting immigration clean up as long as goodies such as housing are given, that's not what is happening here. The only thing that they will get is deported. So it's illogical that they would vote against their own self interest, and that's the kind of logic you can count on in the GMAT. They will have you assume that people will do things that bring some benefit to them. :-)

Thanks, the keywords are "keep it simple".

[tim]

:)