An increased number of candidates running for a political position, on

I don't see anything wrong with (C).

Second bold phrase is another opinion and it is contrary to the first opinion.

Experts please help!!

An increased number of candidates running for a political position, one opinion says, is likely to raise the percentage of voters. The larger the number of candidates who run for a given position, the better the chances that a voter will find a candidate that adequately represents his or her political opinions. In the reality of the political world, however, the opposite is likely to be the case. As more candidates enter the election process, the differences between their declared positions on political matters tend to become less obvious.



in first case, opinion was: likely to raise the percentage of voters and the boldface part is the explanation of the opinion.
in second case, opinion was: the opposite is likely to be the case, here "AS" is used to explain the second opinion which contradicts the first one.


answer should be E

You have to read the answer options quite literally -

"The first explains an opinion that was raised, and the second raises another opinion contrary to the first opinion."

the first boldface explains an opinion. that opinion = "An increased number of candidates running for a political position, one opinion says, is likely to raise the percentage of voters."

the second boldface - "the differences between their declared positions on political matters tend to become less obvious" is not directly contrary to
the first opinion - "likely to raise the percentage of voters".

Option E does a much better job by stating that
second boldface - "the differences between their declared positions on political matters tend to become less obvious" contradicts the
first boldface - "the better the chances that a voter will find a candidate that adequately represents his or her political opinions."

Moreover, I think that the two boldfaces state opinions, but state facts.

Hence, E is the better choice.

(Counter-conclusion) An increased number of candidates running for a political position, one opinion says, is likely to raise the percentage of voters.

(Counter-premise) The larger the number of candidates who run for a given position, the better the chances that a voter will find a candidate that adequately represents his or her political opinions.

(Conclusion - which makes the prior conclusion and premise counterpoints) In the reality of the political world, however, the opposite is likely to be the case.

(Premise) As more candidates enter the election process, the differences between their declared positions on political matters tend to become less obvious.

In the argument given, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

(A) The first explains an opinion that was raised, and the second further supports that opinion by elaborating on the explanation.
The first half is true, but the second half of this answer choice is false. The second premise does not support “that [first] opinion”. We’re looking for an answer choice that expresses that both bold face statements are on “opposite” sides.

(B) The first raises an opinion, and the second raises another opinion contrary to the first opinion.
I suppose the counter-premise is some sort of opinion….and the second is could be as well....and they are "contrary".... Keep for now! Now looking at (E), the bold-face statements are definitely more likely explanations (and factual support) of the non-bolded opinions.

(C) The first explains an opinion that was raised, and the second raises another opinion contrary to the first opinion.
Hm, the first is definitely an explanation of the counter-conclusion opinion. Does the second raise another opinion? No, the opinion is: “the opposite is likely to be the case.”

(D) The first raises an opinion, and the second supplies evidence that supports that opinion.
Hm….the second definitely is not “evidence” that supports the first opinion. This answer choice is not expressing that the bold face statements are on “opposite” sides.

(E) The first explains an opinion that was raised, and the second undermines that opinion by contradicting the explanation.
The first half is true (definitely better than B) and the correctly expresses the “opposite” site factor we’re looking for. Correct!

KAPLAN OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

Step 1: Identify the Question Type
Any question that asks us to identify the roles played by statements in boldface is a Bolded Statement
question. Our task is to find the structure of the stimulus and to determine the structural functions
of the statements in bold type.

Step 2: Untangle the Stimulus
This stimulus includes two contradictory opinions: the author’s opinion, stated in the third sentence,
and the “one opinion” the author is arguing against (we’ll call this the opponent’s opinion),
stated in the first sentence. The opponent believes that the more candidates there are running for
office, the more voters will turn out at the polls. The first bolded statement serves as the opponent’s
evidence: More voters will turn out because the more candidates there are, the more likely voters
are to find one they like and consequently want to vote for. The author counters the opponent,
implying that in actual practice, the more candidates there are, the fewer voters will turn out. The
second bolded statement serves as the author’s evidence: The more candidates there are, the more
alike they all look to voters.

Step 3: Predict the Answer
Both bolded statements, then, are evidence—the first for the opponent’s position and the second
for the author’s.

Step 4: Evaluate the Choices
(E) matches our prediction, though the wording of this choice makes it a bit tricky. The first bolded
statement definitely explains why the opponent holds the position he does. So far, so good. We
know that the second bolded statement is the author’s evidence. Because the author is contradicting
the opponent, the author’s evidence does in fact serve to “undermine” the opponent’s view.
Finally, the second bolded statement directly contradicts the first bolded statement. The first says
that the more candidates there are, the more likely a voter will be to find one she likes. The second
says that the more candidates there are, the more similar they start to seem, which implies that
it will be more difficult for voters to find candidates they like. It follows that the final piece of
choice (E), “by contradicting [the first bolded statement],” is also correct and (E) is the correct
answer. (A) is incorrect because the second bolded statement supports the author’s view, not the
opponent’s. (B) is incorrect because both bolded statements are evidence for an opinion, not the
opinion itself. (C) is incorrect because the second statement is, again, evidence for an opinion, not
the opinion itself. (D) is incorrect because the first bolded statement is evidence, and the second is
evidence for the author, not the opponent. Choice (E) is correct.

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.