|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Status: Prevent and prepare. Not repent and repair!!
Joined: 13 Feb 2010
Posts: 263
Location: India
Concentration: Technology, General Management
GPA: 3.75
WE: Sales (Telecommunications)
Followers: 8
Kudos [?]:
10
[1] , given: 238
|
Historical data for all the elections held in Gangnam City [#permalink]
 25 Oct 2012, 04:02
1
This post received
KUDOS
Question Stats:
46% (02:22) correct
53% (00:41) wrong based on 0 sessions
Historical data for all the elections held in Gangnam City shows that all winning candidates have canvassed for at least 100 hours. In fact candidates who have canvassed for fewer than 100 hours have never ever won. Out of all the candidates contesting in the upcoming elections in Gangnam City, Candidate A has canvassed for 120 hours, Candidate B has canvassed for 150 hours, and Candidate C has canvassed for 90 hours. If the statements above are true, which of the following conclusions is most strongly supported by them? (A) Candidate B will most likely win the election (B) Candidate C will most likely lose the election (C) The winner of the election will either be Candidate A or Candidate B (D) The results of an election cannot be solely dependent on how many hours a candidate canvasses for. (E) If no other Candidate has canvassed for more than 150 hours, then Candidate B will win the election.
_________________
I've failed over and over and over again in my life and that is why I succeed--Michael Jordan
Kudos drives a person to better himself every single time. So Pls give it generously
Wont give up till i hit a 700+
Last edited by rajathpanta on 28 Oct 2012, 03:13, edited 1 time in total.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 02 Jul 2012
Posts: 759
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy
GMAT 1: 740 Q49 V42
GPA: 3.8
WE: Engineering (Energy and Utilities)
Followers: 19
Kudos [?]:
258
[1] , given: 45
|
Re: Historical data for all the elections held in Gangnam City [#permalink]
25 Oct 2012, 04:15
1
This post received
KUDOS
rajathpanta wrote: Historical data for all the elections held in Gangnam City shows that all winning candidates have canvassed for at least 100 hours. In fact candidates who have canvassed for fewer than 100 hours have never ever won. Out of all the candidates contesting in the upcoming elections in Gangnam City, Candidate A has canvassed for 120 hours, Candidate B has canvassed for 150 hours, and Candidate C has canvassed for 90 hours.
If the statements above are true, which of the following conclusions is most strongly supported by them?
(A) Candidate B will most likely win the election
(B) Candidate C will most likely lose the election
(C) The winner of the election will either be Candidate A or Candidate B
(D) The results of an election cannot be solely dependent on how many hours a candidate canvasses for.
(E) If no other Candidate has canvassed for more than 150 hours, then Candidate B will win the election. OA is given as C. However, to me B looks like a better option. The argument never says that A, B and C are the only candidates contesting the election. The argument also clearly says "candidates who have canvassed for fewer than 100 hours have never ever won". Moreover, B is a milder statement compared with C. So to me B looks like a better answer choice. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong. Kudos Please... If my post helped.
_________________
Kudos Please... If my post helped.
Thanks To The Almighty - My GMAT Debrief
My Own CR Question 1|My Own CR Question 2|My Own DS Question 1|My Own DS Question 2|
My Own PS Question 1
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Status: Disappointed devil..
Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 592
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, General Management
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Followers: 20
Kudos [?]:
224
[0], given: 23
|
Re: Historical data for all the elections held in Gangnam City [#permalink]
25 Oct 2012, 04:26
MacFauz wrote: rajathpanta wrote: Historical data for all the elections held in Gangnam City shows that all winning candidates have canvassed for at least 100 hours. In fact candidates who have canvassed for fewer than 100 hours have never ever won. Out of all the candidates contesting in the upcoming elections in Gangnam City, Candidate A has canvassed for 120 hours, Candidate B has canvassed for 150 hours, and Candidate C has canvassed for 90 hours.
If the statements above are true, which of the following conclusions is most strongly supported by them?
(A) Candidate B will most likely win the election
(B) Candidate C will most likely lose the election
(C) The winner of the election will either be Candidate A or Candidate B
(D) The results of an election cannot be solely dependent on how many hours a candidate canvasses for.
(E) If no other Candidate has canvassed for more than 150 hours, then Candidate B will win the election. OA is given as C. However, to me B looks like a better option. The argument never says that A, B and C are the only candidates contesting the election. The argument also clearly says "candidates who have canvassed for fewer than 100 hours have never ever won". Moreover, B is a milder statement compared with C. So to me B looks like a better answer choice. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong. Kudos Please... If my post helped. Totally agreed. Ans B makes more sense. There could be other candidates in the race and likelihood of A or B to win election is not supported by argument. However C with less than 100 hours of campaign may lose the election. Since same has been historically proved. Ans should be B.
_________________
Lets Kudos!!! 
Black Friday Debrief
Most important component: Cast you vote
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 22 Oct 2012
Posts: 34
Concentration: Economics, Finance
GMAT Date: 11-08-2012
GPA: 2.67
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
13
[1] , given: 4
|
Re: Historical data for all the elections held in Gangnam City [#permalink]
25 Oct 2012, 04:32
1
This post received
KUDOS
MacFauz wrote: rajathpanta wrote: Historical data for all the elections held in Gangnam City shows that all winning candidates have canvassed for at least 100 hours. In fact candidates who have canvassed for fewer than 100 hours have never ever won. Out of all the candidates contesting in the upcoming elections in Gangnam City, Candidate A has canvassed for 120 hours, Candidate B has canvassed for 150 hours, and Candidate C has canvassed for 90 hours.
If the statements above are true, which of the following conclusions is most strongly supported by them?
(A) Candidate B will most likely win the election
(B) Candidate C will most likely lose the election
(C) The winner of the election will either be Candidate A or Candidate B
(D) The results of an election cannot be solely dependent on how many hours a candidate canvasses for.
(E) If no other Candidate has canvassed for more than 150 hours, then Candidate B will win the election. OA is given as C. However, to me B looks like a better option. The argument never says that A, B and C are the only candidates contesting the election. The argument also clearly says "candidates who have canvassed for fewer than 100 hours have never ever won". Moreover, B is a milder statement compared with C. So to me B looks like a better answer choice. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong. Kudos Please... If my post helped. I completely agree that it should be option B, not C. Option C makes two assumptions, not supported by the passage: First assumption is that only A, B and C are contesting the election. Second assumption is that the history is a perfect indicator of the future. In other words, if something has not happened in the past, it will never happen in the future also. I say this assumption is made because C is entirely left out of contention for a winner, which, in other words, means that C cannot win. Using past data, we can say that C is less likely to win but we cannot say that "C cannot win". Given that both of these assumptions are not supported by the passage, correct option should be B. Cheers, CJ
_________________
If this post is helpful, think of giving KUDOS.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 13 Oct 2012
Posts: 29
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
6
[0], given: 14
|
Re: Historical data for all the elections held in Gangnam City [#permalink]
25 Oct 2012, 21:20
rajathpanta wrote: Historical data for all the elections held in Gangnam City shows that all winning candidates have canvassed for at least 100 hours. In fact candidates who have canvassed for fewer than 100 hours have never ever won. Out of all the candidates contesting in the upcoming elections in Gangnam City, Candidate A has canvassed for 120 hours, Candidate B has canvassed for 150 hours, and Candidate C has canvassed for 90 hours.
If the statements above are true, which of the following conclusions is most strongly supported by them?
(A) Candidate B will most likely win the election
(B) Candidate C will most likely lose the election
(C) The winner of the election will either be Candidate A or Candidate B
(D) The results of an election cannot be solely dependent on how many hours a candidate canvasses for.
(E) If no other Candidate has canvassed for more than 150 hours, then Candidate B will win the election. It is B indeed, simply because the final result could even be a tie between A and B but going by past trends C will most likely lose.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 11 Oct 2012
Posts: 44
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
9
[0], given: 9
|
Re: Historical data for all the elections held in Gangnam City [#permalink]
26 Oct 2012, 08:44
rajathpanta wrote: Historical data for all the elections held in Gangnam City shows that all winning candidates have canvassed for at least 100 hours. In fact candidates who have canvassed for fewer than 100 hours have never ever won. Out of all the candidates contesting in the upcoming elections in Gangnam City, Candidate A has canvassed for 120 hours, Candidate B has canvassed for 150 hours, and Candidate C has canvassed for 90 hours.
If the statements above are true, which of the following conclusions is most strongly supported by them?
(A) Candidate B will most likely win the election
(B) Candidate C will most likely lose the election
(C) The winner of the election will either be Candidate A or Candidate B
(D) The results of an election cannot be solely dependent on how many hours a candidate canvasses for.
(E) If no other Candidate has canvassed for more than 150 hours, then Candidate B will win the election. I took C and my reasoning for it was that the stem seems to suggest very strongly that someone who does not canvass for 100 hours will win (notice how it speaks in absolutes, such as "ALL winning candidates have canvassed for at least 100 hours"; "...canvassed for fewer than 100 hours have NEVER EVER won". Therefore, in my opinion, the author is very strongly implying that unless you canvass for 100 hours, you won't win and out of all of the candidates, only A and B have canvassed for 100+ hours, therefore ONLY they have a shot at winning. The fact that there are other candidates involved is irrelevant because they are the only ones who have canvassed for 100 hours, so they are the only ones that will win. B doesn't take a strong enough stand based on the author's language, so IMO, it loses to C. The fact that the stem makes us assume the statements as true (i.e. that unless you have 100 hours, you WILL lose), there is simply no chance in hell that candidate C will lose, so "most likely" doesn't cut it. If B said, "Candidate C will lose" then it would be correct.
_________________
Please give kudos if you found my post useful, I give kudos back 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 02 Jul 2012
Posts: 759
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy
GMAT 1: 740 Q49 V42
GPA: 3.8
WE: Engineering (Energy and Utilities)
Followers: 19
Kudos [?]:
258
[0], given: 45
|
Re: Historical data for all the elections held in Gangnam City [#permalink]
26 Oct 2012, 09:02
brooksbrahs wrote: rajathpanta wrote: Historical data for all the elections held in Gangnam City shows that all winning candidates have canvassed for at least 100 hours. In fact candidates who have canvassed for fewer than 100 hours have never ever won. Out of all the candidates contesting in the upcoming elections in Gangnam City, Candidate A has canvassed for 120 hours, Candidate B has canvassed for 150 hours, and Candidate C has canvassed for 90 hours.
If the statements above are true, which of the following conclusions is most strongly supported by them?
(A) Candidate B will most likely win the election
(B) Candidate C will most likely lose the election
(C) The winner of the election will either be Candidate A or Candidate B
(D) The results of an election cannot be solely dependent on how many hours a candidate canvasses for.
(E) If no other Candidate has canvassed for more than 150 hours, then Candidate B will win the election. I took C and my reasoning for it was that the stem seems to suggest very strongly that someone who does not canvass for 100 hours will win (notice how it speaks in absolutes, such as "ALL winning candidates have canvassed for at least 100 hours"; "...canvassed for fewer than 100 hours have NEVER EVER won". Therefore, in my opinion, the author is very strongly implying that unless you canvass for 100 hours, you won't win and out of all of the candidates, only A and B have canvassed for 100+ hours, therefore ONLY they have a shot at winning. The fact that there are other candidates involved is irrelevant because they are the only ones who have canvassed for 100 hours, so they are the only ones that will win. B doesn't take a strong enough stand based on the author's language, so IMO, it loses to C. The fact that the stem makes us assume the statements as true (i.e. that unless you have 100 hours, you WILL lose), there is simply no chance in hell that candidate C will lose, so "most likely" doesn't cut it. If B said, "Candidate C will lose" then it would be correct. You should notice that the argument does not say ONLY A & B. Also the fact that C takes too strong a stand is what makes it wrong when compared with B. " candidate C will lose" would also be incorrect. In finding conclusion more often than not it is a safer pick to choose the milder statement. The author only says that candidates who have canvassed for less than 100 hours have never won. He does not say that such a candidate can never win. The author does not imply that unless you canvass for 100 hours you wont win. Rather he only says that if you do not canvass for 100 hours, the chances for you to win are lesser than your chances if you had canvassed for 100 hours. And on a general note, to repeat myself, in finding conclusion, more often than not it is better to go with the mildest statement. Kudos Please... If my post helped.
_________________
Kudos Please... If my post helped.
Thanks To The Almighty - My GMAT Debrief
My Own CR Question 1|My Own CR Question 2|My Own DS Question 1|My Own DS Question 2|
My Own PS Question 1
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Status: Prevent and prepare. Not repent and repair!!
Joined: 13 Feb 2010
Posts: 263
Location: India
Concentration: Technology, General Management
GPA: 3.75
WE: Sales (Telecommunications)
Followers: 8
Kudos [?]:
10
[0], given: 238
|
Re: Historical data for all the elections held in Gangnam City [#permalink]
28 Oct 2012, 03:12
Correcting the OA. thanks for the replies!
_________________
I've failed over and over and over again in my life and that is why I succeed--Michael Jordan
Kudos drives a person to better himself every single time. So Pls give it generously
Wont give up till i hit a 700+
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Historical data for all the elections held in Gangnam City
[#permalink]
28 Oct 2012, 03:12
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
metallicafan, rajeevrks27, souvik101990, PTK, MacFauz, noboru, kissthegmat, carcass, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, doe007, Vercules, Legendaddy, tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Marcab, Narenn
|
close
