Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
Journalist: Although a recent poll found that more than half of all eligible voters support the idea of a political party whose primary concern is education, only 26 percent would like to join it, and only 16 percent would be prepared to donate money to it. Furthermore, there is overwhelming historical evidence that only a party that has at least 30 percent of eligible voters prepared to support it by either joining it or donating money to it is viable in the long run. Therefore, it is unlikely that an education party is viable in the long run.
The reasoning in the journalist's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument fails to consider that
a-some of those who said they were willing to donate money to an education party might not actually do so if such a party were formed
b-an education party could possibly be viable with a smaller base than is customarily needed
c-the 16 percent of eligible voters prepared to donate money to an education party might donate almost as much money as a party would ordinarily expect to get if 30 percent of eligible voters contributed
d-a party needs the appropriate support of at least 30 percent of eligible voters in order to be viable and more than half of all eligible voters support the idea of an education party
e-some of the eligible voters who would donate money to an education party might not be prepared to join such a party
1-weakens d arguement 2-against premises 4-jus states d premises again 5-out of scope
C does not make sense to me either because of actual examples from the past (ie Ross Perot). Bill Gates or Warren Buffet could decide to form their own "education party", and donate their whole fortune to their party, that amount of money would be 1000s of time more than what the Dems and the Repubs parties have, but that would not make an "education party" which consists of only 2 men (or a handful of rich men) viable in the long run.
Another C. Concur with 123. GMATNUB - while what you say is perfectly valid - on the GMAT typically we need to choose the best amongst the worst if it comes to that. However C seems perfectly valid because at least one of the criterion for the party to be succesful in the long run would be met if the 16 people together provide enough moolah to counter 30.
The conclusion here is that a political party can't be successful without 30% support (made up of donating members and participating members)
The stem states that we have 26% who want to join and 16% who want to donate. I believe the trap in C is assuming that all those who want to donate also want to join, thereby giving the party 26% support ie. unsuccessful. However, if 10% donate and don't join the party, and 26% join as stated in the stem; the party has 36% support - success!
Actually I think GMATNUB is right. I didn't realize that when the choice says SOME of the members who are willing to donate may not join the party - the SOME could actually include ALL of the 16% who are willing to donate MAY NOT JOIN the party and if this happens the corum of 30% will NOT be met and the party will not be viable.
BUT NOW COMES THE TWIST - HOW IS THIS CHOICE WEAKENING THE AUTHOR'S POINT? THE AUTHOR SAYS THE PARTY IS NOT VIABLE ANY WHICH WAY AND CHOICE E IS BUTTRESSING THIS FACT.
in fact none of the choices seems correct as pointed by GMATNUB earlier.
Final decisions are in: Berkeley: Denied with interview Tepper: Waitlisted with interview Rotman: Admitted with scholarship (withdrawn) Random French School: Admitted to MSc in Management with scholarship (...