Find all School-related info fast with the new School-Specific MBA Forum

 It is currently 18 Jun 2013, 16:25

# Journalist: Well-known businessman Arnold Bergeron has long

Author Message
TAGS:
Manager
Joined: 17 Aug 2009
Posts: 238
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 63 [0], given: 25

Journalist: Well-known businessman Arnold Bergeron has long [#permalink]  17 Dec 2009, 07:21
00:00

Question Stats:

30% (01:33) correct 70% (01:29) wrong based on 10 sessions
Journalist: Well-known businessman Arnold Bergeron has long been popular in the state, and he has often talked about running for governor, but he has never run. However, we have just learned that Bergeron has fulfilled the financial disclosure requirement for candidacy by submitting a detailed list of his current financial holdings to the election commission. So, it is very likely that Bergeron will be a candidate for governor this year.

The answer to which of the following questions would be most useful in evaluating the journalist’s argument?

A. Has anybody else who has fulfilled the financial disclosure requirement for the upcoming election reported greater financial holdings than Bergeron?
B. Is submitting a list of holdings the only way to fulfill the election commission’s financial disclosure requirements?
C. Did the information recently obtained by the journalists come directly from the election commission?
D. Have Bergeron’s financial holdings increased in value in recent years?
E. Had Bergeron also fulfilled the financial disclosure requirements for candidacy before any previous gubernatorial elections?

Confused between B and E. But i've picked B.Pls provide suitable explanations
Manager
Joined: 17 Dec 2009
Posts: 55
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 10 [0], given: 4

Re: Confusing CR [#permalink]  17 Dec 2009, 10:20
Difficult one, but I confirm is B

Because when answer the question by yes, it strengthens the conclusion, and when answer the question by no, it weakens the argument.

Whereas for E, when answer the question by Yes, it doesn't affect the conclusion of the Argument.

This method is the Variance Test from Powerscore CR bible.

I hope it helps
Senior Manager
Joined: 02 Aug 2009
Posts: 271
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 61 [0], given: 1

Re: Confusing CR [#permalink]  17 Dec 2009, 10:36
i think E.....
reason for dropping B is.... irrespective of the ans ,whether yes or no, it does not deny that " submitting a list of holdings is a way to fulfill the election commission’s financial disclosure requirements" if yes."it becomes the only way"...if no,"it becomes one of the way"but it remains a way in either case
Manager
Joined: 25 Aug 2009
Posts: 179
Location: Streamwood IL
Schools: Kellogg(Evening),Booth (Evening)
WE 1: 5 Years
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 65 [0], given: 3

Re: Confusing CR [#permalink]  17 Dec 2009, 10:52
I will go with E. Knowing a history of the candidates financial disclosure would be helpful in understanding some sort of pattern.
_________________

Rock On

Manager
Joined: 17 Dec 2009
Posts: 55
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 10 [0], given: 4

Re: Confusing CR [#permalink]  17 Dec 2009, 10:57
If there is another way, it means he's maybe not fulfill the requirement for this election, so we don't know if he is verly likely to be a candidate for Governor this year.
Manager
Joined: 28 Aug 2009
Posts: 197
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 30 [0], given: 1

Re: Confusing CR [#permalink]  17 Dec 2009, 11:22
B. Is submitting a list of holdings the only way to fulfill the election commission’s financial disclosure requirements?
DOES THE ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION GIVE ANY DIRECTION TOWARDS THE FACT THAT HE MIGHT/MIGHT NOT RUN FOR THE ELECTIONS THSI YEAR..NO

E. Had Bergeron also fulfilled the financial disclosure requirements for candidacy before any previous gubernatorial elections?
PROVIDES A CONVINCING LINK BETWEEN FULFILING DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT AND VOTING
Manager
Joined: 08 Jul 2009
Posts: 177
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 12 [0], given: 26

Re: Confusing CR [#permalink]  17 Dec 2009, 22:02
I think it's E, since it provides the link between fulfilling the financial disclosure and running for the election.
Manager
Joined: 17 Aug 2009
Posts: 238
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 63 [0], given: 25

Re: Confusing CR [#permalink]  18 Dec 2009, 05:45
Here's my reasoning -

Journalist: Well-known businessman Arnold Bergeron has long been popular in the state, and he has often talked about running for governor, but he has never run. However, we have just learned that Bergeron has fulfilled the financial disclosure requirement for candidacy by submitting a detailed list of his current financial holdings to the election commission. So, it is very likely that Bergeron will be a candidate for governor this year.

The answer to which of the following questions would be most useful in evaluating the journalist’s argument?

A. Has anybody else who has fulfilled the financial disclosure requirement for the upcoming election reported greater financial holdings than Bergeron? ----Out of scope
B. Is submitting a list of holdings the only way to fulfill the election commission’s financial disclosure requirements? ----CORRECT. As the journalist has just learned that Arnold has fulfilled the requirements, therefore it needs to be established if that itself is correct. Candidacy comes later
C. Did the information recently obtained by the journalists come directly from the election commission? -------irrelevant
D. Have Bergeron’s financial holdings increased in value in recent years?-------irrelevant
E. Had Bergeron also fulfilled the financial disclosure requirements for candidacy before any previous gubernatorial elections? –irrelevant since he hasn’t run for elections before
Senior Manager
Joined: 02 Aug 2009
Posts: 271
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 61 [0], given: 1

Re: Confusing CR [#permalink]  18 Dec 2009, 08:21
" E. Had Bergeron also fulfilled the financial disclosure requirements for candidacy before any previous gubernatorial elections? –irrelevant since he hasn’t run for elections before"....
the reason given by you is the very reason why E is the ans ..... if the ans is yes,it would weaken 'his standing for elections'............if ans is no, it would strengthen the argument
Manager
Joined: 08 Jul 2009
Posts: 177
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 12 [0], given: 26

Re: Confusing CR [#permalink]  18 Dec 2009, 12:48
chetan2u wrote:
" E. Had Bergeron also fulfilled the financial disclosure requirements for candidacy before any previous gubernatorial elections? –irrelevant since he hasn’t run for elections before"....
the reason given by you is the very reason why E is the ans ..... if the ans is yes,it would weaken 'his standing for elections'............if ans is no, it would strengthen the argument

I agree with you, since a yes answer for E would weaken the argument.
Senior Manager
Joined: 18 Aug 2009
Posts: 441
Schools: UT at Austin, Indiana State University, UC at Berkeley
WE 1: 5.5
WE 2: 5.5
WE 3: 6.0
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 37 [0], given: 16

Re: Confusing CR [#permalink]  11 Jan 2010, 00:00
So what is OA?
_________________

Never give up,,,

Manager
Joined: 06 Jan 2010
Posts: 74
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 15

Re: Confusing CR [#permalink]  11 Jan 2010, 10:55
I think its E

B : Even if the info has come from somewhere other than the election commission, the info can still be credible.

E: Put another way; if X has submitted a financial disclosure report, what is the probability that he will run ?
Journalist says high.
In the previous years, if he's submitted reports and had not run, it makes the probability low. This will be useful in validating the journalist's claim.

Hence E.
Manager
Status: Its Wow or Never
Joined: 11 Dec 2009
Posts: 210
Location: India
Concentration: Technology, Strategy
GMAT 1: 670 Q47 V35
GMAT 2: 710 Q48 V40
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 30 [0], given: 7

Re: Confusing CR [#permalink]  11 Jan 2010, 11:00
zaarathelab wrote:
Journalist: Well-known businessman Arnold Bergeron has long been popular in the state, and he has often talked about running for governor, but he has never run. However, we have just learned that Bergeron has fulfilled the financial disclosure requirement for candidacy by submitting a detailed list of his current financial holdings to the election commission. So, it is very likely that Bergeron will be a candidate for governor this year.

The answer to which of the following questions would be most useful in evaluating the journalist’s argument?

A. Has anybody else who has fulfilled the financial disclosure requirement for the upcoming election reported greater financial holdings than Bergeron?
B. Is submitting a list of holdings the only way to fulfill the election commission’s financial disclosure requirements?
C. Did the information recently obtained by the journalists come directly from the election commission?
D. Have Bergeron’s financial holdings increased in value in recent years?
E. Had Bergeron also fulfilled the financial disclosure requirements for candidacy before any previous gubernatorial elections?

Confused between B and E. But i've picked B.Pls provide suitable explanations

b acc to me..using the same variance test as mentioned by ludwigfraboulet.
_________________

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you think you can,you can
If you think you can't,you are right.

Manager
Joined: 06 Mar 2010
Posts: 108
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 11

Re: Confusing CR [#permalink]  26 Jun 2010, 01:58
Will go with E as per the reason given by chetan2u.
Please post the OA & OE to confirm.
Manager
Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Posts: 172
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 18 [0], given: 1

Re: Confusing CR [#permalink]  26 Jun 2010, 06:23
E for me.
_________________

R E S P E C T

Finally KISSedGMAT 700 times 450 to 700 An exprience

SVP
Joined: 17 Feb 2010
Posts: 1568
Followers: 12

Kudos [?]: 123 [0], given: 6

Re: Confusing CR [#permalink]  29 Jun 2010, 19:15
How E can be the OA when the premise says that Bergeron has never run for governor elections.
Intern
Joined: 24 Mar 2010
Posts: 49
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 8 [1] , given: 3

Re: Confusing CR [#permalink]  29 Jun 2010, 20:06
1
KUDOS

The argument summarized:

A popular business man has talked about running for governor, but has never run.

The businessman recently did something you have to do to run for governor.

Thus, it is very likely he will run for governor.

The question we would want answered before we could confirm the journalist's reasoning is correct is; is the only reason that he would file these form is to run for governor? If yes, then we can agree with the journalist. If there are other reasons he would file the forms, then we would have to disagree with the journalist.

B is wrong because it does exactly opposite of what we want to know. B would let us know if there are other ways to become a candidate. This is irrelevant because he has filed the forms. What we need to know is if the only reason for filing these forms is to run for governor.

E is the right question. If, in the past, he has filed the form, then, based on the passage, he filed the form and didn't run for governor. This would lead us to conclude that he has other reasons to file the forms other than running for governor. If he hasn't filed the forms in the past, then we would be more inclined to agree with the journalist that he is doing so now to run. Either way, the answer to this question lets us evaluate the journalist's claims.

I hope this helps.

Thanks,

Jared
Kaplan GMAT Instructor
Joined: 21 Jun 2010
Posts: 75
Location: Toronto
Followers: 16

Kudos [?]: 65 [0], given: 2

Re: Confusing CR [#permalink]  30 Jun 2010, 01:57
Quote:
E is the right question. If, in the past, he has filed the form, then, based on the passage, he filed the form and didn't run for governor. This would lead us to conclude that he has other reasons to file the forms other than running for governor. If he hasn't filed the forms in the past, then we would be more inclined to agree with the journalist that he is doing so now to run. Either way, the answer to this question lets us evaluate the journalist's claims.

Fantastic reasoning!

This is called a relevant information question. One strategy for dealing with this question type is to treat it as hybrid strengthen/weaken: the right answer will be something where, if it goes one way, it will strengthen the argument and, if it goes the other way, it will weaken the argument. Let's apply it to choice E:

If he has fulfilled this necessary condition in the past, then the fact that he did so this time also is no longer a good reason for predicting that he will run (since he didn't run in the past), and the argument is weakened. On the other hand, if he hasn't fulfilled this condition in the past, then the fact that he has done so this time stands as a good (but not sufficient!) reason for predicting that he will run this time, and the argument is strengthened. Thus, knowing the answer to this question would be helpful in evaluating the argument.

Let's consider choice B. Remember, we already know from the passage that he HAS in fact fulfilled financial disclosure requriements (by submitting a list of his financial holdings). If he's already fulfilled the financial disclosure requirements, does it really matter whether there may have been other ways for him to do so?
_________________

Kaplan Teacher in Toronto
http://www.kaptest.com/GMAT

Prepare with Kaplan and save \$150 on a course!

Kaplan Reviews

VP
Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Posts: 1482
Schools: Wharton (R2 - submitted); HBS (R2 - submitted); IIMA (admitted for 1 year PGPX)
Followers: 10

Kudos [?]: 61 [0], given: 13

Re: Confusing CR [#permalink]  30 Jun 2010, 11:18
Hi Testluv - where would you rate this question on a 800 scale? I found it a tad too easy...perhaps a 680? Is that a fair assessment? Just curious...and would appreciate if you would let us know your thoughts...

Testluv wrote:
Quote:
E is the right question. If, in the past, he has filed the form, then, based on the passage, he filed the form and didn't run for governor. This would lead us to conclude that he has other reasons to file the forms other than running for governor. If he hasn't filed the forms in the past, then we would be more inclined to agree with the journalist that he is doing so now to run. Either way, the answer to this question lets us evaluate the journalist's claims.

Fantastic reasoning!

This is called a relevant information question. One strategy for dealing with this question type is to treat it as hybrid strengthen/weaken: the right answer will be something where, if it goes one way, it will strengthen the argument and, if it goes the other way, it will weaken the argument. Let's apply it to choice E:

If he has fulfilled this necessary condition in the past, then the fact that he did so this time also is no longer a good reason for predicting that he will run (since he didn't run in the past), and the argument is weakened. On the other hand, if he hasn't fulfilled this condition in the past, then the fact that he has done so this time stands as a good (but not sufficient!) reason for predicting that he will run this time, and the argument is strengthened. Thus, knowing the answer to this question would be helpful in evaluating the argument.

Let's consider choice B. Remember, we already know from the passage that he HAS in fact fulfilled financial disclosure requriements (by submitting a list of his financial holdings). If he's already fulfilled the financial disclosure requirements, does it really matter whether there may have been other ways for him to do so?
Kaplan GMAT Instructor
Joined: 21 Jun 2010
Posts: 75
Location: Toronto
Followers: 16

Kudos [?]: 65 [0], given: 2

Re: Confusing CR [#permalink]  30 Jun 2010, 13:45
Hi dwivedys,

thank you for the query. 680 converts to 90th percentile; I don't think this question is that difficult. I woud put this question in the low 600s. Although the argument itself isn't difficult, many people would be lured by choice B.
_________________

Kaplan Teacher in Toronto
http://www.kaptest.com/GMAT

Prepare with Kaplan and save \$150 on a course!

Kaplan Reviews

Re: Confusing CR   [#permalink] 30 Jun 2010, 13:45
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
Journalist: Well-known businessman Arnold Bergeron has long 4 11 Sep 2004, 13:38
Journalist: Well-known businessman Arnold Bergeron has long 9 21 Sep 2004, 04:36
Journalist: Well-known businessman Arnold Bergeron has long 5 09 Feb 2005, 08:46
Journalist: Well-known businessman Arnold Bergeron has long 8 21 Mar 2005, 21:53
Journalist: Well-known businessman Arnold Bergeron has long 5 12 Jun 2005, 20:14
Display posts from previous: Sort by