dont agree with the OA : GMAT Verbal Section
Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases http://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 17 Jan 2017, 00:38

### GMAT Club Daily Prep

#### Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# dont agree with the OA

 new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics
Author Message
Senior Manager
Joined: 02 Dec 2007
Posts: 457
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 195 [0], given: 6

dont agree with the OA [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Sep 2008, 01:33
Each increase of 1 percent in real disposable personal income per capita will increase the share of the electorate for an incumbent by about 2.2 percentage points, other things being equal. Since 1952 there has been a decline in real disposable income during only one presidential election year. The incumbent lost that election.
Which of the following conclusions can be properly drawn from the statements above?

A. When an incumbent runs for office, he or she is likely to win.

B. Political parties should take care to put forth a candidate who seems prosperous.

C. Presidential candidates should put their greatest efforts into improving their public image.

D. Because a presidential campaign requires the expenditure of large amounts of money, it frequently impoverishes a candidate and his or her supporters.

E. The outcome of a presidential election is substantially affected by factors other than the ideological positions of the candidates.
If you have any questions
you can ask an expert
New!
Manager
Joined: 21 Aug 2008
Posts: 206
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 14 [0], given: 0

Re: dont agree with the OA [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Sep 2008, 01:39
Nihit wrote:
Each increase of 1 percent in real disposable personal income per capita will increase the share of the electorate for an incumbent by about 2.2 percentage points, other things being equal. Since 1952 there has been a decline in real disposable income during only one presidential election year. The incumbent lost that election.
Which of the following conclusions can be properly drawn from the statements above?

A. When an incumbent runs for office, he or she is likely to win.

B. Political parties should take care to put forth a candidate who seems prosperous.

C. Presidential candidates should put their greatest efforts into improving their public image.

D. Because a presidential campaign requires the expenditure of large amounts of money, it frequently impoverishes a candidate and his or her supporters.

E. The outcome of a presidential election is substantially affected by factors other than the ideological positions of the candidates.

U mean that OA is not E???
Senior Manager
Joined: 02 Dec 2007
Posts: 457
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 195 [0], given: 6

Re: dont agree with the OA [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Sep 2008, 01:42
OA is indeed E . How do you explain other factors in E ?
Manager
Joined: 21 Aug 2008
Posts: 206
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 14 [0], given: 0

Re: dont agree with the OA [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Sep 2008, 01:52
Nihit wrote:
OA is indeed E . How do you explain other factors in E ?

The question stem says there is a linkage between disposable income and presidency election and it supports the argument by saying that 100% correlation between them. Meaning that there should be other factors (such as movement or change in disposable income) rather than the mere direct relation with good candidacy. So, E should be the answer. What was your choice by the way?
VP
Joined: 05 Jul 2008
Posts: 1430
Followers: 39

Kudos [?]: 359 [0], given: 1

Re: dont agree with the OA [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Sep 2008, 08:19
Good Q. Probably Nihit picked A as I did. I was torn between A & E.

I ruled out E because we cannot establish any thing about ideological positions of a candidate. How do we know that an election is influenced by by ideological positions to start with? Should we assume? Err! Grey area of GMAT. What to assume and what NOT to?
SVP
Joined: 07 Nov 2007
Posts: 1820
Location: New York
Followers: 34

Kudos [?]: 860 [0], given: 5

Re: dont agree with the OA [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Sep 2008, 09:26
Nihit wrote:
OA is indeed E . How do you explain other factors in E ?

I chose E too.

Each increase of 1 percent in real disposable personal income per capita will increase the share of the electorate for an incumbent by about 2.2 percentage points, other things being equal

other things being equal --> this refers that --> there are more than one factor.
Green color text --> that is one of the factors how it effects the electorate for an incumbent
_________________

Smiling wins more friends than frowning

Retired Moderator
Joined: 18 Jul 2008
Posts: 994
Followers: 10

Kudos [?]: 196 [0], given: 5

Re: dont agree with the OA [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Sep 2008, 12:47
So why is A wrong then?
VP
Joined: 05 Jul 2008
Posts: 1430
Followers: 39

Kudos [?]: 359 [0], given: 1

Re: dont agree with the OA [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Sep 2008, 14:19
@BFH,

As per GMAT A is probably wrong because

(1) its way too general

(2) Probably out of scope as well because it does not talk about the candidacy and factors that influence it

But I hear ya. Its touchy.
Senior Manager
Joined: 02 Dec 2007
Posts: 457
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 195 [0], given: 6

Re: dont agree with the OA [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Sep 2008, 22:46
I feel one can assume stuff when it comes to conclusions . What do others feel about this? What is within scope and what isn't ?

Btw has anyone read Jeff Sackmann's Verbal Bible?
Senior Manager
Joined: 16 Jul 2008
Posts: 289
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 16 [0], given: 4

Re: dont agree with the OA [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Sep 2008, 00:32
You cannot assume anything not mentioned in the passage.

A is wrong because the passage doesn't say what the chances of an incumbent are. It mentions one of many factors, which influence support for the incumbent. The last sentence gives an example of an incumbent losing the election, but it is important to notice that it doesn't say anything about the other elections since 1952 - how many times the incumbent lost or won.

Edit: actually, I realised that even if we knew how many times the incumbent won in all those previous elections, still nothing can be inferred about the incumbent's chances in the next election. Unless it is explicitly said in the passage that results from past elections have an effect on the outcome of the next one.
_________________

http://applicant.wordpress.com/

Last edited by Nerdboy on 04 Sep 2008, 01:24, edited 1 time in total.
SVP
Joined: 17 Jun 2008
Posts: 1569
Followers: 11

Kudos [?]: 250 [0], given: 0

Re: dont agree with the OA [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Sep 2008, 00:56
Why I will reject A is because running for office does not guarantee increase in per capital income.
Retired Moderator
Joined: 18 Jul 2008
Posts: 994
Followers: 10

Kudos [?]: 196 [0], given: 5

Re: dont agree with the OA [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Sep 2008, 12:33
This was my thought process:
1. increase of disposable income > increase share of electorate
2. increase share of electorate > win!

Thus:
decline in income > incumbent will lose election

However, since 1952, only ONE decline in income (ex: Since 1952 there has been a decline in real disposable income during only one presidential election year. The incumbent lost that election.)

But, if there has been only one decline in income since:
then it goes back to my item #1 above.. Increase of disposable income > then he/she is likely to win (answer a)

What's wrong with my logic here?

Nerdboy wrote:
You cannot assume anything not mentioned in the passage.

A is wrong because the passage doesn't say what the chances of an incumbent are. It mentions one of many factors, which influence support for the incumbent. The last sentence gives an example of an incumbent losing the election, but it is important to notice that it doesn't say anything about the other elections since 1952 - how many times the incumbent lost or won.

Edit: actually, I realised that even if we knew how many times the incumbent won in all those previous elections, still nothing can be inferred about the incumbent's chances in the next election. Unless it is explicitly said in the passage that results from past elections have an effect on the outcome of the next one.
VP
Joined: 05 Jul 2008
Posts: 1430
Followers: 39

Kudos [?]: 359 [0], given: 1

Re: dont agree with the OA [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Sep 2008, 16:05
This was my thought process:
1. increase of disposable income > increase share of electorate
2. increase share of electorate > win!

Thus:
decline in income > incumbent will lose election

However, since 1952, only ONE decline in income (ex: Since 1952 there has been a decline in real disposable income during only one presidential election year. The incumbent lost that election.)

But, if there has been only one decline in income since:
then it goes back to my item #1 above.. Increase of disposable income > then he/she is likely to win (answer a)

What's wrong with my logic here?

Nerdboy wrote:
You cannot assume anything not mentioned in the passage.

A is wrong because the passage doesn't say what the chances of an incumbent are. It mentions one of many factors, which influence support for the incumbent. The last sentence gives an example of an incumbent losing the election, but it is important to notice that it doesn't say anything about the other elections since 1952 - how many times the incumbent lost or won.

Edit: actually, I realised that even if we knew how many times the incumbent won in all those previous elections, still nothing can be inferred about the incumbent's chances in the next election. Unless it is explicitly said in the passage that results from past elections have an effect on the outcome of the next one.

Nothing wrong with your logic. Its just NOT what GMAT wants us to think. As I said A definitely is a possibility but is NOT a strong choice because GMAT considers E is better than A. E is probably better because E talks about the factors other than candidacy. I ruled it out because there is no way we can say that other factors influence substantially, when we only know that one such factor influences the outcome. Define other ?? Where did the stem mention that Ideological positions of the candidate. A is much safer by saying that an incumbent is likely to win. There is no degree of certainty or 50% chances or what so ever.

They want us to say what they think. We can bitch and moan ( I did on occasions ) about this but nothing is going to change. The part that bothers me this is a moving target and every time you apply the reasoning GMAT CR you just learned, The new Q seems to come up with some thing new.
Senior Manager
Joined: 06 Apr 2008
Posts: 449
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 142 [0], given: 1

Re: dont agree with the OA [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Sep 2008, 21:56
IMO E)
Retired Moderator
Joined: 18 Jul 2008
Posts: 994
Followers: 10

Kudos [?]: 196 [0], given: 5

Re: dont agree with the OA [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Sep 2008, 10:37
Yeah, couldn't agree with you more. Sigh.
Intern
Joined: 04 Jan 2011
Posts: 2
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 0

Re: dont agree with the OA [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Jan 2011, 11:31
I agree with A.

This follows from the denial test sometimes used for conclusion type questions.

If the denial of an answer choice makes the argument fall through chances are that the answer choice is the correct answer/conclusion.

If a incumbent is not likely to win at all then the underlying logic that only one election has been lost since 1952 - only in the case where the electoral shares were low, does not hold true.

Hope this helps.
Senior Manager
Status: Can't give up
Joined: 20 Dec 2009
Posts: 320
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 31 [0], given: 35

Re: dont agree with the OA [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Jan 2011, 11:06
E
Current Student
Joined: 08 Jan 2009
Posts: 326
GMAT 1: 770 Q50 V46
Followers: 25

Kudos [?]: 136 [0], given: 7

Re: dont agree with the OA [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Jan 2011, 21:38
Here is my thinking.

A is wrong because there is no evidence given to support it, at all

We are told:
- Increase in income => increase in incumbents vote
- Income decreased only once, in that year the incumbent lost

A says: "When an incumbent runs for office, he or she is likely to win."

There are a myriad of scenarios here that completely contradict A, and still fit with the information given.

Most obviously: In those years where there was an increase in income, the incumbent may still have lost! In fact, the incumbent may have lost every election since 1952.

The statement "the incumbent lost every election since 1952" doesn't contradict any information we are told, and clearly doesn't lead to concluding answer A.
Manager
Joined: 27 Oct 2010
Posts: 189
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 10 [0], given: 20

Re: dont agree with the OA [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Jan 2011, 11:36
e
Re: dont agree with the OA   [#permalink] 20 Jan 2011, 11:36
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
OA 3 16 Oct 2008, 19:51
OA doubtful 9 13 Oct 2008, 20:28
Don't agree with OA 9 08 Sep 2007, 11:17
Don't agree with OA.... 4 04 Jul 2007, 10:48
Don't agree with OA... 10 04 Jul 2007, 10:34
Display posts from previous: Sort by

# dont agree with the OA

 new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics

 Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group and phpBB SEO Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.