|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 29 Jul 2007
Posts: 184
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
9
[0], given: 0
|
Last year in the United States, women who ran for state and [#permalink]
 04 Dec 2007, 19:24
Question Stats:
0% (00:00) correct
 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 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 given?
(A) Last year the proportion of women incumbents who won reelection was smaller than the proportion of men incumbents 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 politicians 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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 11 Jun 2007
Posts: 647
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
16
[0], given: 0
|
(E)
Conclusion:
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.
(E) is the exact opposite of the conclusion.
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
CEO
Joined: 29 Mar 2007
Posts: 2618
Followers: 13
Kudos [?]:
142
[0], given: 0
|
Skewed wrote: 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 given?
(A) Last year the proportion of women incumbents who won reelection was smaller than the proportion of men incumbents 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 politicians 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.
E provides an alternative explanation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 09 Oct 2007
Posts: 471
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
15
[0], given: 1
|
agree on E.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 09 Oct 2007
Posts: 471
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
15
[0], given: 1
|
I'm a senior manager now 
|
|
|
|
|
|
CEO
Joined: 29 Aug 2007
Posts: 2530
Followers: 41
Kudos [?]:
358
[0], given: 19
|
Skewed wrote: 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 given?
(A) Last year the proportion of women incumbents who won reelection was smaller than the proportion of men incumbents 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 politicians 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.
E is clear.
|
|
|
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 22 Nov 2007
Posts: 1108
Followers: 6
Kudos [?]:
80
[0], given: 0
|
E. because is the only one that consider an obstacle to women's willingness to run.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 26 Mar 2006
Posts: 647
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
12
[0], given: 0
|
Skewed wrote: 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 given?
(A) Last year the proportion of women incumbents who won reelection was smaller than the proportion of men incumbents 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 politicians 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.
Conclusion: few women win elections not because they have difficulty but because few turn up. Otherwise, if more turn up more will win. The proporting will increase directly
(E) draws a comparison between men and women and reasons out why they do not run... they don't because of insufficient funds
Therefore why not 'A' 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 524
Location: Indonesia
Followers: 3
Kudos [?]:
65
[0], given: 0
|
I will go for E
Amar
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 19 Aug 2007
Posts: 207
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
9
[0], given: 0
|
Skewed wrote: 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 given?
(A) Last year the proportion of women incumbents who won reelection was smaller than the proportion of men incumbents 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 politicians 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.
I originally picked E, but in the premise it states that "women who ran for state and national offices were about as likely to win as men."
So, the argument is based on those who are already running, not those who want to run. and, only for that reasoning, only B) makes sense to me (although, I will say, its a pretty crappy answer choice)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 11 Aug 2007
Posts: 67
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
4
[0], given: 0
|
Skewed wrote: 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 given?
(A) Last year the proportion of women incumbents who won reelection was smaller than the proportion of men incumbents 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 politicians 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 is E. The conclusion says that "few women want to run". E refutes it
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 11 Apr 2007
Posts: 147
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
15
[0], given: 0
|
I picked E too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 29 Jun 2007
Posts: 50
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
8
[0], given: 0
|
My answer is B. What is the OA?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 29 Jul 2007
Posts: 184
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
9
[0], given: 0
|
miketal20 wrote: My answer is B. What is the OA?
E.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
metallicafan, rajeevrks27, souvik101990, PTK, MacFauz, noboru, kissthegmat, carcass, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, doe007, Vercules, Legendaddy, tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Marcab, Narenn
|
close
