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:
Last year in the United States, women who ran for state and [#permalink]
02 Apr 2004, 20:18
0% (00:00) correct
0% (00:00) wrong based on 1 sessions
Last year in the United States, women who ran for state and national offices were about as likely to win as men. However, only about fifteen percent of the candidates for these offices were women. Therefore, the reason there are so few women who win elections for these offices is not that women have difficulty winning elections but that so few women want to run.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the conclusion above?
a.last year the proportion of female incumbents who won reelection was smaller than the number of male incumbent who won reelection
b.Few women who run for state and national offices run against other women.
c.Most women who have no strong desire to be politician s never run for state and national offices.
d.The proportion of people holding local offices who are women is smaller than the proportion of people holding state and national offices who are women.
e.Many more women than men who want to run for state and national offices do not because they cannot get adequate funding for their campaigns.
It clearly boils down to B and E. B may be confusing at first but if you take the time to analyze it, you will see that it is wrong. Say there are 100 candidates and 15 are women. Whether or not those 15 women run against each other will not justify the reason why there are so few women running. On the other hand, E explicitly mentions the cause of women not running as a being financial issue. Let's say there were 50 women willing to run but that because of financial constraints, only 15 could run, then can we say that there were few women who wanted to run? No. 50 actually wanted to run. E is best as it weakens the argument.