Which one of the following, if true, would most call into question the author's assertion in the last sentence of the...

Stephanie on March 28, 2019

Please explain

Can you please explain this question?

4 Replies

jing jing on April 14 at 01:57AM

Why is the answer choice Danish agency invested more funds into the Indian project than US agency invested into the Brazil project wrong? I thought Danish succeeded in India because it involved government cooperation at all levels and thus can be inferred Danish invested less. Sorry I just didn't get this question. Thank you

on May 14 at 03:56AM

Also looking for an explanation

Shunhe on May 18 at 02:08AM

Hi @Steph, @jingjingxiao11111@gmail.com, and @Jimmywantstogotolawschool,

Thanks for the question! This question is asking us for something that would weaken the author's statement in the last sentence of the passage, which is that the Danish agency has a good chance of remaining competitive and profitable for the long run because it recognizes the importance of local involvement at all levels. To anticipate a little, we can tell that one way to weaken this is if local involvement at all levels isn't really that important, since if that's not the case, then it doesn't matter that the Danish agency pays so much attention to it. This is what (A) does to the argument. If the India project's profitability had to do with subsidies, and not necessarily with local involvement, then it's not necessarily true that local involvement is important, and so that would weaken the author's assertion about the Danish agency, which rests on the underlying assumption that local involvement is something that is important. Hope this makes sense, let me know if you have any further questions! 

Hope this helps! Feel free to ask any other questions that you might have.

Isaak on July 12 at 10:12PM

But in this case, why is (A) correct over (B)? Don't they both weaken the argument that local involvement was responsible for the project's success in India?