Weakening question:

[duyng9989]

Hi:

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.

Thank you.

i want to hear from you

[duyng9989]

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.

[RonPurewal]

hi,
this is the wrong folder for this question. (this is the GMAT PREP folder; nothing should be posted in this folder except questions about GMAT PREP problems.)

also -- unless you made up the arguments in your post yourself -- you MUST cite the original source of everything you post. (not another forum -- the original source.)

please re-post these topics in the appropriate folder -- MGMAT verbal folder if the problems are ours, general verbal folder if they aren't.

thanks.