Industrialists from the country Distopia were accused of promoting the Distopian intervention in the Arcadian civil war merely to insure...
GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions
Industrialists from the country Distopia were accused of promoting the Distopian intervention in the Arcadian civil war merely to insure that the industrialists' facilities in Arcadia made substantial profits during the war. Yet this cannot be the motive since, as the Distopians foresaw, Distopia's federal expenses for the intervention were eight billion dollars, whereas, during the war, profits from the Distopian industrialists' facilities in Arcadia totaled only four billion dollars.
Which of the following, if true, exposes a serious flaw in the argument made in the second sentence above?
Passage Analysis:
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
| Industrialists from the country Distopia were accused of promoting the Distopian intervention in the Arcadian civil war merely to insure that the industrialists' facilities in Arcadia made substantial profits during the war. |
|
| Yet this cannot be the motive since, as the Distopians foresaw, Distopia's federal expenses for the intervention were eight billion dollars, whereas, during the war, profits from the Distopian industrialists' facilities in Arcadia totaled only four billion dollars. |
|
Argument Flow:
The passage starts by presenting an accusation against Distopian industrialists, then immediately counters this accusation with a cost-benefit comparison to show why profit couldn't have been their motive.
Main Conclusion:
Profit cannot be the motive for Distopian industrialists promoting military intervention in Arcadia.
Logical Structure:
The author uses a simple math comparison as evidence - since government intervention costs ($8 billion) exceeded industrial profits ($4 billion), profit couldn't logically be the motive for pushing for intervention.
Prethinking:
Question type:
Weaken - We need to find information that reduces belief in the conclusion that profit cannot be the motive for industrialists promoting intervention
Precision of Claims
The argument makes specific quantitative claims ($8 billion government expenses vs $4 billion industrial profits) and assumes these figures directly relate to the industrialists' motivations
Strategy
Look for scenarios that show the comparison between government expenses and industrial profits is flawed, irrelevant, or misleading when determining the industrialists' motives. The key flaw is that the argument compares government costs to private profits as if they're directly related to the industrialists' decision-making
This choice discusses increased productivity in Distopian facilities, but this doesn't address the core flaw in the argument's reasoning. The argument's problem isn't about total profits but about who pays the intervention costs versus who receives the benefits. Additional profits from other facilities would actually strengthen the case that industrialists benefited financially, but it doesn't expose the fundamental logical error about cost allocation.
This directly exposes the critical flaw in the argument. The original reasoning assumes that we can compare total government expenses to industrial profits to determine motivation. However, if the industrialists aren't the ones primarily paying the \(\$8 \text{ billion}\) in intervention costs, then their personal cost-benefit calculation would be very different. They could receive \(\$4 \text{ billion}\) in profits while paying only a small fraction of the \(\$8 \text{ billion}\) costs, making intervention highly profitable for them personally. This makes the argument's comparison between total costs and industrial profits irrelevant for determining the industrialists' motivations.
This discusses future profit expectations but doesn't address the logical flaw in the argument. The argument's reasoning about past motivation would still be flawed regardless of what profits are expected in the future. This choice doesn't challenge the comparison between government expenses and industrial profits.
This provides information about pre-war profits but doesn't expose any flaw in the argument's logic. Whether facilities were profitable before the war doesn't address the fundamental error in comparing total government costs to private industrial profits when determining motivation for promoting intervention.
This discusses humanitarian concerns but doesn't address the logical structure of the argument about financial motivation. The argument's flaw lies in its cost-benefit analysis, not in whether other motivations might exist. This choice doesn't expose any error in the reasoning about profit motives.