CR70870.01 – Some theorists and critics
Question Some theorists and critics insist that no aesthetic evaluation of a work of art is sound if it is based even in part on
Menu
Nalmed Province’s plan is to reduce highway congestion by expanding the commuter rail system, so giving more people the option of travelling by train. When a recent opinion poll presented this plan to province residents, they overwhelmingly favored it, even though they knew that enacting the plan would mean substantial tax increases. Consequently, the plan, if enacted, is very likely to succeed, because if the people are prepared to pay, they expect to reap the benefit.
The inference made from the poll results is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that
(This question is from Official Guide. Therefore, because of copyrights, the complete question cannot be copied here. The question can be accessed at GMAT Club)
Nalmed Province’s plan is to reduce highway congestion by expanding the commuter rail system, so giving more people the option of travelling by train.
The plan: Expand the commuter rail system -> Give more people the option to travel by train
The goal: Reduce highway congestion
When a recent opinion poll presented this plan to province residents, they overwhelmingly favored it, even though they knew that enacting the plan would mean substantial tax increases.
In the poll, the province residents strongly supported the plan, even though they were aware that they would need to pay substantially increased taxes.
Consequently, the plan, if enacted, is very likely to succeed, because if the people are prepared to pay, they expect to reap the benefit.
“Consequently” indicates that the author is making a conclusion here.
Conclusion: If the plan is enacted, the plan is very likely to succeed.
Support to the conclusion: If people are prepared to pay (from the above statement, we know that people are willing to pay substantially increased taxes), they expect to reap the benefits.
If the plan (expand the rail system to give more people the option to travel by train) is enacted, the plan is likely to achieve its goal of reducing highway congestion.
Why?
How can we not infer the conclusion from the given support?
There can, of course, be other gaps in the argument
The question stem uses the word “Inference” to refer to the conclusion. We’re asked to find a reason for which the conclusion can be criticized most strongly. (To do so, we need to have EXACT understanding of the conclusion and the premises)
(A) Incorrect.
Let’s understand the meaning of option A. I believe that many of us don’t even understand the exact meaning of this option; we’re so eager to evaluate it 😉
The option says that the conclusion overlooks the possibility.
Which possibility?
The possibility that once the highways are consistently uncongested… (The possibility pertains to the situation in which highways are uncongested, i.e., the goal has been achieved. Did you realize that this option was talking about what would happen post the realization of the goal?)
“some commuters might have no motivation to switch from using their car to using the rail system.”
Do you realize that this is talking about commuters switching from using their car to using the rail system?
Are these commuters currently using their car or using the rail system?
They are using their cars. (That’s why we’re talking about switching from using their car)
So, essentially, this part is saying that these commuters who are still using their car might have no motivation to switch to the rail system.
***
Now, stichting the two parts together – the option talks about the possibility that once the highways are uncongested, some commuters who will still be using their cars might have no motivation to switch to the rail system.
Thus, in a way, the possibility is that once the highways are consistently uncongested, there will be no more reduction in congestion.
The million-dollar question is whether this possibility matters to the argument.
It does not.
The goal of reduction of congestion has been achieved. Now, whether there is more reduction or not doesn’t matter to the argument.
****
Let me talk about the following version of option A:
A1: it overlooks the possibility that once the highways are consistently uncongested, NO commuters WILL have the motivation to switch from using their car to using the rail system.
This is an extreme variation of option A. While option A said that some might not have the motivation, A1 says that no one will have the motivation.
Is this possibility relevant to the argument?
The answer is, again, No. The reasons are also the same as given above. Once the highways are consistently uncongested, we’re not concerned whether there is even more reduction in congestion. Our goal (reduction in congestion) has been achieved. We have achieved salvation! 🙂
*****
Let me talk about another version of option A:
A2: it overlooks the possibility that some commuters might have no motivation to switch from using their car to using the rail system.
A2 differs from option A in that A2 doesn’t have the condition “once the highways are consistently uncongested”.
Is the possibility covered by A2 relevant to the argument?
Yes. It’s not completely irrelevant.
Can we weaken the argument by presenting this possibility, i.e., by saying that some commuters might have no motivation to switch from using their car to using the rail system?
Not really.
It’s important to be aware that “some” means at least one. So, the guaranteed information from saying this is simply that one commuter might have no motivation to switch from using their car to using the rail system.
How much impact would knowing about one commuter make to the argument?
Hardly any.
Thus, even A2 will be an incorrect option.
(B) Correct.
This option talks about the favorable responses, i.e., people who supported the plan even while being aware that they would have to pay more taxes. These favorable responses are entirely consistent with every one of these people expecting others to use the rail system and thus reduce highway congestion.
If everyone is expecting others to use the rail system, then we have a reason to believe that “nobody” will use the rail system once it is expanded. Thus, it seems more likely to me now that there will be no reduction in highway congestion. Thus, it seems more likely that the plan will fail to achieve its goal.
So, this option is correct.
(Are you wondering, “if these people are not even using the rail system, why were they willing to pay for it? The argument talks about reaping the benefits. Isn’t this option going against this part of the argument?
No need to worry. These people were indeed expecting to reap the benefits. They were expecting to reap the benefit of uncongested highways. They were thinking, “others will use the rail system, and I’ll enjoy the uncongested highways.”)
***
Let me now create a variation of option B:
B1: Some of the respondents who responded favorably to the poll expected that it would be others who, by using the rail system, would ease highway congestion.
Would B1 also be correct?
No.
The goal is a reduction in congestion, not the elimination of congestion. Thus, even if some (at least one) respondents would not use the rail system, the argument would not be impacted.
***
Perhaps, you can begin to appreciate how “some” can make an option incorrect.
Does it mean that all options having “some” are incorrect?
No. Here’s one question with “some” in the correct option.
(C) Incorrect.
This option is in the opposite direction. We’re looking for an option with which we can criticize the conclusion.
This option supports the conclusion. If these respondents also might become users of the rail system, then the goal (of reducing highway congestion) is even more likely to be achieved.
(D) Incorrect.
This option says that the opponents of the plan might have other reasons to oppose the plan.
However, whether there are other reasons these opponents have to oppose the plan is NOT RELEVANT to the argument. Those people anyway oppose the plan. What their reasons are is irrelevant.
(E) Incorrect.
Incorrect.
This option indicates that the residents who responded to the poll overestimated the tax increase, i.e., they thought they’d have to pay Rs 100 more as tax whereas they’d need to pay just Rs 50 more as tax.
So what?
They were willing to pay Rs 100, and the argument reasons that if the people are prepared to pay, they expect to reap the benefit.
Given that the argument’s reasoning revolves around what people are prepared to pay and not what people end up paying, this option doesn’t impact the argument.
Question Some theorists and critics insist that no aesthetic evaluation of a work of art is sound if it is based even in part on
Question Boreal owls range over a much larger area than do other owls of similar size. The reason for this behavior is that the small
Question Archaeologist: Researchers excavating a burial site in Cyprus found a feline skeleton lying near a human skeleton. Both skeletons were in the same sediment
Learn GMAT the right way – through common sense and logic. There’s no shortcut to a well-deserved success!
© 2021 All rights Reserved.