#20 - Specific Reference, Weaken

[Chandler H]

Specific Reference (SR), Weaken
(See the complete passage discussion here: viewtopic.php?f=895&t=38305)

The correct answer choice is (A).

In the last sentence of the passage, the author asserts that the India project is likely to remain profitable and competitive in the long run because "the Danish agency [...] recognized the importance of local involvement at all levels." Therefore, if the India project was actually profitable because the Indian government subsidized it temporarily, it would mean that the project wouldn't necessarily be profitable in the long run.

[ay514]

Hello,

The answer for this question is A which I initially ruled out because I took "involvement at all levels" (ln 59) to include the local government (aka the Indian government). Could you help me figure out why this is incorrect thinking? Thank you!!

[Steve Stein]

Thanks for your question. In the last sentence of the passage, the author asserts that the project has a good chance of remaining competitive and profitable. If, as answer choice (A) provides, it turned out that the profitability was actually due to temporary government subsidies, this would significantly weaken the author's assertion regarding the chances of long-term profitability for the project.

Let me know if that's clear--thanks!

[ay514]

Yes, thank you! I guess I was so fixed on the idea of involving all locals that I wasn't able to weaken the statement by attacking the long-term success of the project. Thank you so much!!

[Albertlyu]

Thanks for your question. In the last sentence of the passage, the author asserts that the project has a good chance of remaining competitive and profitable. If, as answer choice (A) provides, it turned out that the profitability was actually due to temporary government subsidies, this would significantly weaken the author's assertion regarding the chances of long-term profitability for the project.

Let me know if that's clear--thanks!

thanks, Steve, could you please help me understand why B is wrong? My understanding is that the author assumed without justification that government involvement is the reason for the project's long term profitability, and B just gave a different reason.

thank you again.

Albert

[Adam Tyson]

To weaken the claim in the last sentence we need some evidence that the project in India might not remain competitive and profitable. We already know from earlier in the paragraph that Indian firms were able to increase the use of wind energy profitably, so it's not relevant how much the initial investment was, or whether it was larger or smaller than the investment the U.S. made in Brazil. The only issue is whether they will stay profitable or not, and answer B does nothing to address that. Answer A, however, does - if the subsidies that allowed for them to be profitable were temporary, and those were the primary reason that they were profitable, then when the subsidies run out the profits might just come to an end as well.

[Albertlyu]

To weaken the claim in the last sentence we need some evidence that the project in India might not remain competitive and profitable. We already know from earlier in the paragraph that Indian firms were able to increase the use of wind energy profitably, so it's not relevant how much the initial investment was, or whether it was larger or smaller than the investment the U.S. made in Brazil. The only issue is whether they will stay profitable or not, and answer B does nothing to address that. Answer A, however, does - if the subsidies that allowed for them to be profitable were temporary, and those were the primary reason that they were profitable, then when the subsidies run out the profits might just come to an end as well.

thank you Adam for your help, I just did this passage again and got it right this time. Yes, I should have focused on the conclusion "profitable for the long run", if A is established, then it certainly calls the conclusion into question.

thank you, please have a good weekend.

Albert