This page is part of my unofficial solutions manual to the GRE Paper Practice Book (2e), a free resource available on the ETS website. They publish the questions; I explain the answers. If you haven’t worked through the Practice Book, give Section 3 a shot before reading this!
3.14: Corruption in City Hall
This is our first example of a question format I like to call “Same, Worse, or Better.” In these questions, the goal is to find out which answer weakens an argument the most — or, in some later questions, strengthens it the most. (You can see from the comparative language that we’re looking for the best answer choice, rather than a single right answer.) The way we’ll play it is to sort the answers into three simple groups:
- those that have no clear effect either way
- those that weaken the argument
- those that strengthen the argument
Only one group — “Weaken” or “Strengthen,” depending on the question — will be worth further consideration, and this group will usually contain only one or two answer choices. In this case, we’re looking for answer choices in the “Weaken” pile; if we’re lucky, we’ll only end up with one such answer, and no further work will be necessary.
First, though, we need to be crystal clear as to what the argument is. In this question, it’s pretty easy to find, but we need to have it in advance so that the answer choices don’t cloud the issue. In brief:
“Because only Bixby appointees are being prosecuted, the task force must be picking its targets based on political affiliations.”
Now, consider answer (A). Does a decrease in complaints tell us anything about the motives of the task force? Not really. It might be the case that the task force is doing its job fairly and impartially, resulting in a decrease in corruption. But maybe the task force is unfairly targeting Bixbyites, and complaints have dropped anyway because the real crooks in City Hall have decided to keep a low profile while the investigation is underway. Another option: the mere existence of the task force persuades the citizens that something is being done, so they feel less motivated to complain. Without more information, it’s hard to decide among these competing possibilities. Consequently, (A) goes into the pile marked “No Clear Effect.”
Answer (B) doesn’t tell us much without knowing Bixby’s reasons for keeping quiet. Perhaps Bixby knew that there was no corruption (or, at least didn’t think that there was any corruption) and kept quiet in the belief that Stephens’ task force would fail to find anything. In that case, we would have very weak circumstantial evidence that the task force is targeting Bixbyites. But what if Bixby were corrupt and only went along with Stephens’ plan in order to avoid being dragged into the investigation? As we try to reason our way through the implications of (B), we will eventually conclude that it provides no real help in evaluating the editorial’s claim. We label it “No Clear Effect.”
In contrast to the previous two options, answer choice (C) seems to strike fairly directly at the credibility of the argument. If nearly all of the potential targets for investigation (i.e., the senior city officials) are Bixbyites, then the fact that the task force is prosecuting only Bixbyites might just be a coincidence. This answer choice provides a simple alternative explanation for the pattern remarked in the editorial; in other words, it shows that the same result might occur whether or not the task force is politically motivated. Since it calls the editorial’s reasoning into question, we put (C) in the “Weaken” pile.
Answer choice (D) is another one that leaves us needing more information. Maybe the staffers who compose the task force have developed some kind of grudge against the Bixby appointees; if so, that would strengthen the argument. But they might just be honest civil servants who are interested in rooting out corruption. Unless we’re prepared to assume that the task force members are necessarily more corrupt because they work in city government, this answer belongs in the “No Clear Effect” pile. Finally, answer (E) is basically the opposite of (B), which (recall) didn’t tell us much. Bixby, we reasoned in (B), might have chosen not to oppose the task force for a variety of reasons; likewise, s/he might have decried the claims of corruption for many different reasons. This one, too, goes under “No Clear Effect.”
Now that we’ve considered each answer choice in turn, we can see that only one of them leaves the argument worse off than it was before. Answer choice (C) is clearly damaging to the editorial’s claim that the prosecutions must have been politically motivated. Each of the other answer choices could go either way.