Political Analyst: After the Soviet Union

[kunal0101]

Political Analyst: After the Soviet Union collapsed, some hoped that freedom would encourage Russians to multiply, but as a result of dislocation and insecurity, the Russian population continues to dwindle at the rate of 700,000 a year. The government proposes to address the problem with a wide range of financial incentives, along with investments in improved health care, road safety and the like. These are positive measures, but they have been tried before, to little avail. A better plan to reverse the population decline is to improve the country's governance in both the public and the private sphere. If a greater part of the population participated in important decisions and shared in the country's wealth, then larger families would result. In addition, if corruption and greed among the elite were curbed, public health would improve and average life expectancy would increase.

The two boldfaced statements serve what function in the argument above?

The two boldfaced statements serve what function in the argument above?

A: The first is the main point of the analyst's argument; the second is a premise that supports the the first.

B: The first is a premise that undermines an alternative to the analyst's proposal; the second is a premise that supports the analyst's main claim.

C: The first is a premise that contradicts the main point made by the analyst; the second is the main point of the argument.

D:The first is a premise that supports a proposal; the second is that proposal.

E:The first is a conclusion that the argument endorses; the second is a premise that opposes that conclusion

I dont understand why the ans is B. What is the alt to the analysts' proposal?

[tim]

To answer your question, look at the boldface portion. "THEY have been tried before" - what is the "they"? Obviously the alternatives to what the analyst is proposing. Those alternatives can be found in the previous sentence: "The government proposes to address the problem with a wide range of financial incentives, along with investments in improved health care, road safety and the like."

[supreet0405]

Hi, Sorry for opening an old topic. Just wanted to know why the proposals made earlier are considered of the Political Analyst when in fact it is of the Government? Therefore, why are we demeaning the analyst?

Can someone please explain?

[tim]

I don't see any indication that the earlier proposals are attributed to the analyst or that anyone is demeaning the analyst. In other words, I don't see anything relevant in your question. If I am wrong, can you please clarify?

[supreet0405]

Well actually I thought that the first part of the B) option was undermining the proposal of the analyst, whereas now I get it that the alternate of the analyst's proposal, i.e. the government's proposals were being undermined. I didn't understand the meaning of the first part of the option when I read it the first time.
Thanks.

[tim]

Always helps to take a second look at what's going on, especially if your understanding seems to contradict the GMAT. :)