The report's authors' position is that they must receive government funding, which requires a reputation for competence. So they're saying they have to carry on like this for the time being. What would weaken this position?
The correct answer is (B), which says they will continue to have problems because of their lack of a coherent vision. But the authors already countered this in the stimulus: even if the serious problems continue, they still feel that government funding is a more important issue in the short term, so they'll live with the problems. I don't see how (B) adds anything new. (E), however, suggests that their reputation is getting worse, which means the required condition for receiving government funding won't be met. Which suggests that they better think of a new plan. Doesn't that attack the authors' position much better?
Thank you.
PT11 Section 2 #21 Forum
- lennonist
- Posts: 159
- Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2010 9:38 pm
Re: PT11 Section 2 #21
So, the critics = vision (un-pragmatic), while the authors = funding/reputation for competence (pragmatic)bkred wrote:The report's authors' position is that they must receive government funding, which requires a reputation for competence. So they're saying they have to carry on like this for the time being. What would weaken this position?
The correct answer is (B), which says they will continue to have problems because of their lack of a coherent vision. But the authors already countered this in the stimulus: even if the serious problems continue, they still feel that government funding is a more important issue in the short term, so they'll live with the problems. I don't see how (B) adds anything new. (E), however, suggests that their reputation is getting worse, which means the required condition for receiving government funding won't be met. Which suggests that they better think of a new plan. Doesn't that attack the authors' position much better?
Thank you.
Answer choice (B) works best because it reinforces the critics' position of vision (true, not new info for us) as a counter to the authors' pragmaticism. (E) is not really relevant to the critics' position because it touches the issue of competence and who deserves what.
Sorry for a sucky explanation, about to leave the house...