please can an expert explain this
I was thinking E
it looks for a reason to show that the attendance decline does not mean decline in support
if a decrease in unemployment implies people have started getting jobs so they are busy working and cannot attend does not mean that people now dont show intrest
so it should be E
can anyone explain a general streagtegy for solving these problems
It helps to first classify the question type. I'd call this an "explain the discrepancy".
The quick summary is that the size of the demonstrations has been decreasing, but we're trying to explain why this might not
mean a drop in public support for the opposition.
Be careful not to mix the two groups – there are the demonstrators
themselves and then there is the public
(meaning everyone in the country). If (E) is true, then yes, you are correct, some demonstrators might now have jobs and that could explain whey there are fewer demonstrators on the street. But notice what (E) says about the public
: the decrease in unemployment "has led to increased
popular support for the government."
We wanted to argue that support for the demonstrators had not declined, but if more people support the government then surely it has!
The decline in unemployment alone may help resolve the discrepancy, but if it's accompanied by an increase in support for the government that actually makes the discrepancy worse.
Mark Sullivan | Manhattan GMAT Instructor | Seattle, WA
Manhattan GMAT Discount | Manhattan GMAT Course Reviews | View Instructor Profile