Jim: The United States Mint has recently announced that the

[paul.gmat]

Jim: The United States Mint has recently announced that the rising cost of raw copper, nickel, and zinc has pushed the cost of manufacturing each penny and nickel to more than 1 cent and 5 cents respectively. In addition, there are very few, if any, items that can be purchased for 5 cents, and virtually none that can be purchased for a penny. Since it appears that both the penny and the nickel no longer provide a necessary function in today’s economy, I propose that the government simply stop minting the coins at a loss and declare the base unit of U.S. currency to be the dime.

Mary: Don’t be silly. This would mean that all prices would round up to the nearest dime and nobody would go for that. There is simply no way that Congress would approve, much less consider, such an unpopular measure.

In her response to Jim, Mary does all of the following EXCEPT:
A Makes an assumption about how Jim’s proposal would affect prices.
B Implies that Congressional approval is necessary for Jim’s proposal to take effect.
C Provides a reason why Jim’s proposal would be difficult to implement, regardless of its justification.
D Assumes that Congress will never approve a policy that has little public support.
E Attempts to undermine all or some of the premises upon which Jim justifies his proposal[/list]

MGMAT goes with E. However surely "no longer provide a necessary function in today’s economy" is a premise of the argument. When Mary points out what would happen if his proposal went through she disproves this premise - clearly one of the functions they serve is to allow for more granular pricing of goods/services. I think C is better. Mary provides plenty of reasons why Jim's proposal would not be approved but mentions nothing about implementation..

Don't know about govt. in the US but can tell you that in Ireland there is a big difference between govt. saying they will do something and the real work actually getting done :)

On a more general note how anally retentive should one be one these CR questions.

[StaceyKoprince]

Hmm. That's interesting. I agree with your first point - if we assume that the two coins do allow more granular pricing based on Mary's comment, then Jim's "no necessary function" premise is undermined.

I don't think that C is better though. The first step in implementing a plan is getting that plan approved. If it can't get approved... there goes implementation.

And, finally agree with your general comment on the way gov't works. The US is not that different from Ireland. :)

I'll ask our curriculum director what he thinks about your first point. (Warning: I know he's really busy right now, so we might have to wait a while for his response.)

[satpreet]

Shouldn't it be A ?

Mary is not making an assumptions regarding how the pricing would be affected. She explicitly says that the prices would be round to the nearest dime.

Thanks

[StaceyKoprince]

Right - she is assuming that people would round UP and to the nearest dime. Why wouldn't they round down? Or to the nearest 50 cents? Or who knows what?

She is making an assumption when she makes that statement.

[cesar.rodriguez.blanco]

Can anyone explain the OA in other words the following official explanation?
(C) Mary provides an argument that such a proposal would have little practical chance of being implemented because of its unpopularity. The unpopularity of a public proposal is not necessarily correlated with whether the proposal is "justified" or not.

I do not understand the last part: "The unpopularity of a public proposal is not necessarily correlated with whether the proposal is "justified" or not"

Thanks

[RonPurewal]

Can anyone explain the OA in other words the following official explanation?
(C) Mary provides an argument that such a proposal would have little practical chance of being implemented because of its unpopularity. The unpopularity of a public proposal is not necessarily correlated with whether the proposal is "justified" or not.

I do not understand the last part: "The unpopularity of a public proposal is not necessarily correlated with whether the proposal is "justified" or not"

Thanks

here's a simpler way to explain this:

"regardless of its justification" means that mary is not addressing the issue of whether the proposal is justified or not.

that much is true.
mary doesn't get into the issue of whether or not there is a good reason to implement the suggestion (i.e., whether it is "justified"). she could perfectly well agree with all of jim's reasons.
her only objections are based on the idea that the plan is not feasible.

--

what i find rather funny about mary's objection is that it overlooks the obvious impossibility of phasing out nickels, since a quarter is worth 25 (and not, say, 20) cents. if there were no nickels, it would be impossible to give change from amounts containing odd numbers of quarters.

[JamesW890]

My apologies for resurrecting such an old thread, but I wanted to weigh in on this.

C. provides a reason why Jim’s proposal would be difficult to implement, regardless of its potential benefits

E. attempts to undermine a premise upon which Jim bases his proposal

I cannot begin to see how C is inferior to E.

Why it shouldn't be E: Mary absolutely undermines Jim's premise that "the penny and the nickel no longer provide a necessary function in today’s economy" by pointing out the coin's utility in more accurate and lower prices. I don't know how one could argue those points aren't directly linked. Whether or not it is an accurate critique or an assumption is irrelevant, because she attempted to undermine.

Why it should be C: If we are to accept that because approval will be difficult >> implementing will be difficult as a strong reason to support this answer, that's a stretch. That would require an assumption on our part that anything implemented must be accepted first. Does common sense tell us that would be the case? Of course. But this is GMAT Critical Reasoning, and picking apart assumptions and demanding clarity is a guy to success. I would not assume this unless it was given. Maybe there is a test phase where policy is tested prior to acceptance. Who knows? Again, I wouldn't want to make the habit of assuming so too easily.

As for the second part of C, "provides a reason... regardless of its potential benefits", Mary in no way concedes a single potential benefit of Jim's point. The second half of this answer simply did not happen. Whether the second half of the statement was intended to be applied to Mary's ACTUAL provided reason or not, can be argued. Either way, it's ambiguous as written. Another reason C is weak, (and thus, should be the answer).

So.... how is this not C?

Thanks,
James

[Sage Pearce-Higgins]

Regarding answer C, I would point to the phrase "nobody would go for that". Sure, it's a little vague, but it suggests that the proposal would be difficult to implement. Also, the words "regardless of justification" are just a distraction. Mary doesn't need to concede a justification for the proposal, it's simply that she's concerned with the consequences, not the reasons.

As for answer E, the issue is whether Mary attacks the premise that nickels and dimes "not longer provide a necessary function". She claims that "all prices would round up to the nearest dime" as an unpopular consequence of the proposal but this isn't saying that nickels and dimes have a necessary function. I think you're confusing what Mary says with your point about the "coin's utility in [allowing] more accurate and lower prices". Your point is a good one, but it's not what Mary says.