Q21 - A recent report on an environmental improvement

[WaltGrace1983]

This is a weaken question that is very strange because there really isn't an argument to evaluate and the claim made by the report's authors are incredibly vague and disjointed from the critics of the report. Either way, I'll do the best I can but if anyone wants to chime in I'd love to hear from you. I'm a bit surprised that no one has talked about this question yet.

Critics of the Report: Program focuses solely on pragmatic solutions rather than producing a coherent vision of the future

Authors of the Report: To do anything, the program needed govt. funding and to get such funding it needed to regain a reputation for competence (Do something → Govt. Funding → Regain Reputation)

Our task seems to be to strengthen the critics. Yet I also sense that we might want to weaken the authors, too.

How do we do this? Good question . At first, I was thinking that we would do this by showing that the program had to (produce a coherent vision of the future) in order to (regain the reputation). That was honestly all I could think of. However, we could have also just thrown a hail mary and attack the premises that the authors' claims rest on. Perhaps we could show that they could actually do things without the govt. funding or regaining the reputation. Either way, this one is weird so I'll spend a bit more time on the answer choices then I probably would have.

(A) We don't care about how much govt. funding - we just know that govt. funding is needed. It could be 5% for all we know!

(B) This certainly serves the critics' claims by explaining how important the coherent vision is. However, this doesn't very strongly undermine the report's authors. Let's keep it for now.

(C) So there has been a vision before. Yet what does that mean for right now? Is a coherent vision needed? Is it not? This doesn't give us much to work with.

(D) I am very unsure how this affects the argument. This just says that the govt. threatened to cut of funding but hasn't yet. This has nothing to do with the future vision.

(E) We don't care about what it deserves. The argument was focusing on the actual reputation - not what it should be.

I think that I might have had a bit too much trouble with getting to (B) because I was unsure of my task. Can anyone clear this one up for me? Are we just trying to strengthen the critics' claim? I am confused because this is categorized as a Weaken question by Cambridge.

[maryadkins]

Your analysis is very good! And agreed, this is an unusual question.

Well done. Yes, we weaken the author's point by strengthening the critics, which (B) does. Also, you can think of it as weakening the author's point because how is going to "regain a reputation for competence" if it continues to have serious problems?

[xiao.xiao.hu.cl]

I think it is a difficult queation and I am suprised few people pay attention to it.

The argument core of the report is

focusing on pragmatic solutions to the problems → regain a reputation for competence → get govn. funding → To do anything

Therefore, answer B attacks the first gap that whether focusing on pagmatic solutions can regain reputation for competence. The answer is No, because the problems will continue to have numerous serious problems precisely because it lacks a coherent vision for its future.

Firstly note "continue"! It's not new problem that pragmatic solutions never apply to. The problem always exists that the pragmatic solution cannot solve, which weaken author's.

Now note "precisely"! It means the coherent vision is exactly the solution to sovle the problem, which strenghten the critics of the report.

[ILikeKneadedErasers]

I'm having a lot of trouble eliminating E and getting to B.

The authors don't really seem to address the future problems of the program the way that the critics seem to. The position that the authors have is that they need to get a reputation for competence first isn't it? So doesn't E strike most directly at that?

I suppose it's possible that the program has "a reputation for competence" still despite the fact that that reputation is lower than what it should be but E still seems to still strike more at the heart of the author's position than B does? I'm really confused.

[WaltGrace1983]

I'm having a lot of trouble eliminating E and getting to B.

The authors don't really seem to address the future problems of the program the way that the critics seem to. The position that the authors have is that they need to get a reputation for competence first isn't it? So doesn't E strike most directly at that?

Yes I think that is correct.

I suppose it's possible that the program has "a reputation for competence" still despite the fact that that reputation is lower than what it should be but E still seems to still strike more at the heart of the author's position than B does? I'm really confused.

I think that is what makes (E) maybe a bit tempting, BUT the real question is, "does the program really NEED the reputation?"

The authors seem to say, "Look. We need money and to get money we need to regain a reputation." The critics say, "Dude! Just focus on the vision of the program!"

(E) says that, yes, the reputation kind of sucks and it doesn't deserve its treatment. However, this doesn't answer the question of "do we really NEED the reputation?"

(B) says, "no! You don't NEED the reputation. You don't because the program will have problems precisely (only) because there is no vision." In other words, (B) is implying that you don't really need the reputation at all. Instead, you really need to listen to the critics. This both helps the critics and hurts the authors.

[letslsat]

I've been trying to identify the premise and conclusion for this question. Can anyone help me out?

[FelixJ461]

Hi!

I believe there are two different arguments/positions in the stimulus:

1) The critics' argument:
Pre: Because it solely focuses on pragmatic solutions instead of producing a coherent vision.
Con: The report was criticized.

2) The authors' argument:
Pre: Regain a reputation for competence.
To do anything at all (including producing a coherent vision) ----> Government funding ----> Regain reputation for competence
So the authors believe that there can't be a coherent vision without regaining reputation, and then government funding.
Con: The pragmatic solutions are 1st priority.

Please correct me if I am wrong!