General weakening questions

[duyng9989]

Hi:
I have to move my post to general verbal question. My previous post is here.
weakening-question-t23010.html

I want to have a discussion about the way we can weaken a question:

Concern 1: Weaken/ strengthen for a side in favor by providing more advantage points?

Example:

Can we weaken/ strengthen an argument, which favors for a choice discussed, by providing more advantage/ disadvantage to the side it support and the side it opposes?

For example:

Hedge fund X has been considered a safe heaven when it consistently beat the market. However, last year the hedge fund lost 50% its value. Therefore, it is an alarm that by investing in X one can lose as much money as by investing in other hedge funds.

Choice: Fund X's manager said that, Hedge fund X can provide a lot additional advantage such as lower fee, broader level of diversification, tax advantages, bla bla bla...

My question is that whether the fund X's manager really weaken the criticism that one can lose as much money by investing in his fund than by investing in other hedge funds?

Concern 2: weaken/ strengthen vs feasibility

For example:

Scientist found the way to produce fusions energy, which is similar to what happens in the sun, on earth. The condition is that if we can accumulate an enough amount of hydrogen and enough heat. Therefore, scientists concluded that they can create huge amount of energy on earth if they can accumulate enough hydrogen and create enough heat the fuse the reaction.

Choice: To kick start the reaction, scientists must accumulate the entire hydrogen on earth, a task that is impossible.

Is the choice really weaken the argument?

I think no because we need to distinguish between something certain and the feasibility.

I found it analogue with Achimedes' saying that: " give me the place to stand on, I will move the Earth". One cannot weaken his argument by simply saying that you cannot find a stand :D.

For my second concern:

I found the similar question here:

tarrifs-t7699.html

Ron said that: If X, then Y. We do not need to assume that X is feasible.

So, in ManhattanGMAT book's example, what is the difference?

ManhattanGMAT example:

Sidney's get-rich-quick scheme is sure to succeed. He wil buy undervalued properties in foreclosure. Then he will resell the properties to a local real estate developer and generate large profits.

Assume: Undervalued properties in foreclosure actually exist and that Sidney can find them. It also assumes that local real estate developers will want to buy such properties from Sidney and will be willing to pay more than he paid in the first place.



PS: THOSE QUESTIONS are my general questions. Some questions are from ManhattanGmat. The source is cited during I discussed.

I hope to hear from you soon since I have waited more than 2 weeks to get a feedback that I have to move the old post.

Thanks

[jlucero]

First off, let me point out that Ron asked you to post to the proper forum, something that's mentioned at the top of each forum. We ask this so that other students can also benefit from your question. Also, we try to answer questions in the order that we receive them, but since this is a free resource for everyone, you can't expect us to answer any question immediately.

Now, onto your questions, which I am answering as best I can since they are not directly copied and include a few grammatical errors.

1) My question is that whether the fund X's manager really weaken the criticism that one can lose as much money by investing in his fund than by investing in other hedge funds?

The way this is weakening the conclusion is not to say that you won't lose money, but that you won't lose AS MUCH money as you will with other hedge funds. That weakens the conclusion. It doesn't guarantee that the conclusion is wrong, it just gives us something that makes the conclusion less strong.

2) Therefore, scientists concluded that they can create huge amount of energy on earth if they can accumulate enough hydrogen and create enough heat the fuse the reaction.

Choice: To kick start the reaction, scientists must accumulate the entire hydrogen on earth, a task that is impossible.

Is the choice really weaken the argument?

Is this a Manhattan question? Because I agree with you that the choice that you stated doesn't directly hurt the conclusion. However, I'd need to see the entire language of the question, because you could have a question that is weakening the conclusion IF the question said something like "which of the following would most weaken the conclusion that scientists could produce fusion energy on Earth..." Again, it's all about the wording. But you are recognizing an important point, that the "if..." part of the question isn't relevant to weakening the conclusion. But that's different in your third question:

3) Sidney's get-rich-quick scheme is sure to succeed. He wil buy undervalued properties in foreclosure. Then he will resell the properties to a local real estate developer and generate large profits.


Here, there's no "if... then..." statement. The conclusion is that the scheme will succeed. But if Sidney can't buy undervalued properties or resell those properties, this hurts the conclusion.

Overall, I'd say the number one thing you have to be cautious of on all these questions is being better at identifying the specific conclusion. You have a pretty good grasp on some of the subtleties, but the GMAT has lots of tricks up its sleeves to make these questions harder than what you are able to do right now.