Doubt in the Problem set Chapter-1 from Manhattan's CR guide

[vishalc581]

Hi,

I was studying Chapter -1 from Manhattan's CR guide and have doubt in the Problem set given in the end of chapter-1:

Page-22 edition-5
Question: Read the argument and try to identify the role of each sentence or major piece of information. Use that
information to write out the building block structure

4. Editorial: To stem the influx of illegal immigrants, the government is planning to
construct a wall along our entire border with Country Y. This wall, however, will do
little to actually reduce the number of illegal immigrants. Because few economic opportunities
exist in Country Y, individuals will simply develop other creative ways to
enter our nation.

In the above problem, I think the bolded part is background information but in the answer it is written that it is a Counterpoint or CounterPremise.



Similarly,

1. A program instituted by a state government to raise money allows homeowners to
prepay their future property taxes at the current rate. Even if the government were
to raise the tax rate in a subsequent year, any prepaid taxes would allow the homeowner
to maintain taxes at the lower rate, lowering the overall property tax burden
over time. For this reason, homeowners should participate in the program.


In this problem the bolded part seems to be a premise because it supports the conclusion that "homeowners should participate in the program." and it is supported by "A program instituted by a state government to raise money allows homeowners to
prepay their future property taxes at the current rate"

but in the answer it is written that this part is background information.


Could you please help me.

[tim]

As long as you understand what's going on in each argument, the labels don't matter other than the conclusion.

[JbhB682]

would it not be needed for bold face arguments ?

My thoughts ...instructors - could you please confirm if this line of logic is accurate for this ?

4. Editorial: To stem the influx of illegal immigrants, the government is planning to
construct a wall along our entire border with Country Y. This wall, however, will do
little to actually reduce the number of illegal immigrants. Because few economic opportunities
exist in Country Y, individuals will simply develop other creative ways to
enter our nation.


Line 1 : Given the statement starts with "Editorial", it could mean, the author is speaking on someone's behalf ...so not sure if line 1 is about the author's own opinion or just stating a fact or just stating some one else's opinion (aka some one else' conclusion) -- -leave for now

This wall, however, will do little to actually reduce the number of illegal immigrants : ....key word : however... sounds like the author is talking ...hence most likely this is the main conclusion of the author of this blurb

Because few economic opportunities exist in Country Y, individuals will simply develop other creative ways to enter our nation.... premise to support above conclusion re: doing little to stem the flow ......

Going back to line 1 again ...this is now obviously a counter and not the author's opinion...can be marked as counter premise as it goes against the main conclusion the author believes in ..

[Sage Pearce-Higgins]

Good job for tackling these problems in some detail. Because GMAT arguments are somewhat informal, they can be a bit vague (in comparison, say, to academic philosophy). Therefore it's important not to get too analytical in your response. In the Describe the Role questions you find in GMAT, you don't have to say whether something is background information or not. Look through a few problems from the OG to see the kind of thing they ask for. Also, lots of CR problems have something like 'Editorial:' at the beginning; this means that the entire argument is from that point of view. Also, remember that these arguments aren't perfect (that's why they're good to study for assumptions etc.!), so that they never add up perfectly.

With all that in mind, here's my analysis of the argument:

Editorial: To stem the influx of illegal immigrants, the government is planning to construct a wall along our entire border with Country Y.
This is not actually an argument, but a plan of action with an expected result. However, it works like an argument, since we have result (conclusion) and plan of action (reason / premise).
This wall, however, will do little to actually reduce the number of illegal immigrants.
You're right to pay attention to this "however" - it shows a change of direction. The editorial doesn't agree with the government's plan and gives her conclusion.
Because few economic opportunities exist in Country Y, individuals will simply develop other creative ways to enter our nation.
Pay attention to this "because" - it shows a reason for the editorial's conclusion.

The editorial's conclusion is the main conclusion of the argument, so the first sentence is counterpoint.