Q20

[zach.wallis]

I'm probably making this out to be harder than it is but why is A the correct selection? I took this section timed and when I got to this question I had to choose quickly. A sounded good after a read but B was more attractive (the answer I chose) because I could easily link it to the last sentence of the passage.

[bbirdwell]

Think of this like a "weaken" question from the LR section. That help you focus on the conclusion and the reasoning.

C: The Danish project has good chance of being profitable and competitive in the long run.

p: because the Danish recognized the importance of involving locals

(A) directly attacks the "profitability" portion of the conclusion. If the short-term profits were due to government subsidies, long-term profits are questionable, as is the reasons given (perhaps it was solely due to the subsidies and had nothing to do with local involvement)

Taken in this light, (B) is clearly irrelevant. Whether the Danish invested more or less than some other country invested in some other project does not affect the likelihood of the Danish project being profitable.

See what I mean?

[yoohoo081]

Taken in this light, (B) is clearly irrelevant. Whether the Danish invested more or less than some other country invested in some other project does not affect the likelihood of the Danish project being profitable.

See what I mean?

I had the same question and after reading explanation, does this mean that investment in other countries more or less is completely irrelevant to weakening the argument? And this would be including outside information and that's not permitted, right?

[zee.brad]

Taken in this light, (B) is clearly irrelevant. Whether the Danish invested more or less than some other country invested in some other project does not affect the likelihood of the Danish project being profitable.

See what I mean?

I had the same question and after reading explanation, does this mean that investment in other countries more or less is completely irrelevant to weakening the argument? And this would be including outside information and that's not permitted, right?

For this better to use LR weaken questions techniques. Basically author implied a causal relationship: local involvement at all levels --> good chance of competitive and profitable. In that case, we need to attack on this causal relationship: 1. involvement doesn't cause success; 2. success causes involvement at all levels 3. some other factor causes both involvement and success.
So ans A perfectly address 1: success is not caused by involvement but rather gov subsidies.

[wj097]

Taken in this light, (B) is clearly irrelevant. Whether the Danish invested more or less than some other country invested in some other project does not affect the likelihood of the Danish project being profitable.

See what I mean?

Hey,

Thanks for the explanation! While, I now do understand why (A) weakens the author's last statement,

But still feel like (B) is supposedly doing the same thing...introducing an alternative reason for project profitability and competitiveness, outside of local involvement; after all, Danish energy agency is not a local involvment...

I was also debating about (C) basing on the same logic but crossed it out as it is part of local involvement.

I'm probably not getting something here...

[jsd_2003]

RESONSE TO WJ097:

A directly states another cause for the profitability of the India project (as opposed to the concluding statement's claim that local involvement was the cause).

B and C both DO NOT directly state that their answers are the causes. To attribute B or C as the cause would be to assume.

[cyt5015]

Is India government subsidy a local involvement? I thought it is and therefore chose B instead. Please help!

[maryadkins]

Is India government subsidy a local involvement? I thought it is and therefore chose B instead. Please help!

Nope! Indian government subsidies would be national involvement, not local.

A directly states another cause for the profitability of the India project (as opposed to the concluding statement's claim that local involvement was the cause).

B and C both DO NOT directly state that their answers are the causes. To attribute B or C as the cause would be to assume.

Yep! Exactly.