I was following a topic and saw Komal making a comment on that page. http://www.beatthegmat.com/undermines-t ... 52322.html
I want to challenge her reasoning and I have my own reasoning to make. Please read through my reasoning and help me understand where I went wrong. I agree GMAT mostly attacks the conclusion but attacking the premise is never deemed wrong!
So if we take the question in the above pasted link,
not inability of women to win but so few women want to run (Cause) -----> few women win elections (Effect/conclusion)
The author never mentioned the reason for the cause, he just stated that few women want to run. I have to find another cause for women not able to win which will be the right answer. Komal states that option E introduces another reason for the conclusion, but I beg to differ. Option E introduces a reason for the cause but doesn't offer another cause as to why less women win (conclusion). For me Option A is more convincing because whether it be election or re-election the very first line (premise) says that women and men have equal chance of winning which is proven wrong in this option. Also, in the conclusion or last line author clearly states not because of inability of women to win which again option A undermines. Moreover, option E talks about the reason of why more women do not want to participate in the elections but not about why women are not winning elections after filing nomination papers. So we are talking about two different phases. Consider the below example:
A town contains 100 women and 50 men. If 80 women do not contest in elections because of lack of funds. Only 20 women will contest. Let us consider 40 men contests for elections. This scenario is in total agreement with option E but also in agreement with author's conclusion.
Another scenario of the same example, 60 women do not participate and 30 men in which case we are undermining the conclusion and option E is valid.
Since we shouldn't find a possibility answer, I want to go with option A..... re-election or election success rate of women winning elections is not same as men success rate. It primarily nullifies the premise (first line). So I strongly feel my argument is correct. Please help me understand this more.
Also, can you please clarify the questions I have in the following post: noun-modifiers-can-modify-slightly-far-away-noun-135868-60.html#p1296949
Thank you for your time.