Economist: A symptom of the incipient decline of a society is its inability to produce what its own citizens regard...
GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions
Economist: A symptom of the incipient decline of a society is its inability to produce what its own citizens regard as necessary for a reasonably prosperous life. But when corporations in a given society extend their manufacturing operations to other countries, this is because of the greater profitability of producing the goods abroad, not because of any incapacity to produce the goods at home. Clearly, then, a society whose businesses enthusiastically embrace the outsourcing of its manufacturing operations is not beginning to decline.
The economist's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on which of the following grounds?
Passage Analysis:
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
|---|---|
| A symptom of the incipient decline of a society is its inability to produce what its own citizens regard as necessary for a reasonably prosperous life. |
|
| But when corporations in a given society extend their manufacturing operations to other countries, this is because of the greater profitability of producing the goods abroad, not because of any incapacity to produce the goods at home. |
|
| Clearly, then, a society whose businesses enthusiastically embrace the outsourcing of its manufacturing operations is not beginning to decline. |
|
Argument Flow:
The economist starts with a general rule about what shows societal decline (can't produce necessary goods), then explains that outsourcing happens for different reasons (profit, not inability), and concludes that outsourcing societies aren't declining
Main Conclusion:
A society whose businesses enthusiastically embrace outsourcing is not beginning to decline
Logical Structure:
The argument assumes that since outsourcing is motivated by profit rather than inability to produce, it doesn't fit the definition of decline. However, this creates a potential gap - the argument doesn't consider whether outsourcing might still result in the inability to produce necessary goods, regardless of the original motivation
Prethinking:
Question type:
Misc - This is a flaw question asking what makes the argument vulnerable to criticism. We need to identify logical weaknesses in how the economist reaches their conclusion.
Precision of Claims
The economist makes specific claims about causation (outsourcing happens due to profit, not inability) and draws a definitive conclusion (societies that outsource are not declining). The precision lies in distinguishing between different reasons for the same outcome.
Strategy
For flaw questions, we look for gaps in logic, unwarranted assumptions, or places where the reasoning breaks down. The economist's argument has a clear logical structure, so we need to find where that logic fails. We should look for:
- Whether the economist's distinction actually matters for the conclusion
- Whether there might be alternative explanations the economist ignores
- Whether the economist's reasoning properly connects the premises to the conclusion
This correctly identifies the main logical flaw. The economist says inability to produce necessary goods is a symptom (not the only symptom) of decline. Then, after showing outsourcing doesn't involve inability to produce, the economist concludes the society isn't declining. But wait - just because we don't see one symptom doesn't mean decline isn't happening through other causes or symptoms. The economist incorrectly assumes that ruling out one symptom rules out the entire condition.
This misses the point of the argument's flaw. The economist isn't making a comparison between what different countries consider necessary - the argument is about whether a society can produce what its own citizens consider necessary. The flaw isn't about cross-cultural differences in lifestyle expectations.
While the economist doesn't explicitly discuss where profits go, this isn't the core logical weakness. The argument's main flaw is in the reasoning structure itself (treating absence of one symptom as proof of no decline), not in overlooking economic details about profit flows.
The economist doesn't actually make this assumption. The argument focuses on societies that can produce goods profitably (they just choose to produce abroad for higher profits). The economist isn't discussing societies where manufacturing operations can't be performed profitably.
This suggests the economist overlooks economic factors' importance, but actually the economist is focusing on economic factors (profitability of outsourcing). The flaw isn't about ignoring economics - it's about the logical leap from 'no inability to produce' to 'no decline occurring.'