Last year in the United States, women who ran for state and : GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) - Page 2
Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases http://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 16 Jan 2017, 14:05

### GMAT Club Daily Prep

#### Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# Last year in the United States, women who ran for state and

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Intern
Joined: 07 Aug 2009
Posts: 7
Followers: 0

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

### Show Tags

21 Aug 2009, 20:31
OA ??
Manager
Status: Berkeley Haas 2013
Joined: 23 Jul 2009
Posts: 191
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 38 [0], given: 16

### Show Tags

22 Aug 2009, 08:25
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.

I think A undermines this reasoning because it does what bold part says. But conclusion says bold part is not the reason. Hence A undermines the reasoning

E on the other part I think is a Shell Game type answer which makes you believe that it undermines the reasoning.

IMO A

Please someone provide an OA. This is a tricky one. 650+ Level
Manager
Affiliations: CFA Level 2 Candidate
Joined: 29 Jun 2009
Posts: 221
Schools: RD 2: Darden Class of 2012
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 210 [0], given: 2

### Show Tags

25 Aug 2009, 09:59
I'm going to back up E but I don't think we are focusing on the correct conclusion.

It's not that women don't win elections (they do at 50%)
It's that woman won't run for politics.

We need to weaken the "but" statement

E does this by addressing that it's not that women won't run it's that they can't run due to not obtaining proper funding to even run in the first place.
Intern
Joined: 06 Jul 2009
Posts: 33
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

25 Aug 2009, 11:42
IMO A.

conclusion: reason so few women win election is not because difficulty winning elections but so few women want to run.

A only answer that undermines: less women won reelection than men who won relection so more men won reelection, resulting in more men than women in office.

B supports conclusion: women don't want to run against women so fewer women want to run.

C irrelevant: women who don't want to run never runs - only tells us some women don't want to run for office. Conclusion

D irrelevant: conclusion does not compare local office with state and national offices.

E supports conclusion: women don't want to run because they can't secure funding; thus, "so few women want to run".
Senior Manager
Joined: 17 Jul 2009
Posts: 299
Concentration: Nonprofit, Strategy
GPA: 3.42
WE: Engineering (Computer Hardware)
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 41 [0], given: 9

### Show Tags

25 Aug 2009, 15:45
E, because it directly refutes the conclusion
Intern
Joined: 21 Jun 2009
Posts: 4
Followers: 0

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

### Show Tags

25 Aug 2009, 16:34
IMO E,

What is OA?
Manager
Joined: 15 Mar 2008
Posts: 51
Followers: 1

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

### Show Tags

28 Aug 2009, 05:53
E weakens the argument the most.
It says that the women want to run but lack of funds for their campaigns keeps them from running for elections. So, it is not the will of the women that is responsible for their lower numbers, as the stimulus suggests, but it is some other reason.
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10526
Followers: 917

Kudos [?]: 203 [0], given: 0

Re: Last year in the United States, women who ran for state and [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Nov 2013, 14:25
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
Manager
Joined: 06 Jul 2011
Posts: 132
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 71 [0], given: 240

Re: Last year in the United States, women who ran for state and [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 May 2015, 11:34
A is my answer. OA seems to be E
GMAT Tutor
Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 1183
Followers: 418

Kudos [?]: 1505 [0], given: 4

Re: Last year in the United States, women who ran for state and [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 May 2015, 16:22

It's important to note here that the question tells us in the stem that: Last year in the United States, women who ran for state and national offices were about as likely to win as men. This is a premise of the argument - it absolutely cannot be wrong. It's always an error to try to disprove a premise in GMAT CR, because premises are absolute facts. I gather answer A might seem appealing because it suggests that women are not actually as good as men at winning elections. But we know as an absolute fact here that women are just as good as men at winning elections. If answer A is true, and fewer women incumbents win, then it absolutely must be true that more first-time woman candidates win than men, because that's the only way it could be true that women win as often as men.

So A is not the right answer. The key is to focus on the right part of the conclusion. The conclusion says, in part: the reason there are so few women who win elections is ... that so few women want to run. Whether women want to run for these offices is not mentioned anywhere in the stem, and there could be lots of reasons women do not run, even though they very much want to. Perhaps they lack party support, or funding, or face other obstacles that men do not face. That's why E is the best answer here.
_________________

GMAT Tutor in Toronto

If you are looking for online GMAT math tutoring, or if you are interested in buying my advanced Quant books and problem sets, please contact me at ianstewartgmat at gmail.com

Manager
Joined: 06 Jul 2011
Posts: 132
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 71 [0], given: 240

Re: Last year in the United States, women who ran for state and [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 May 2015, 16:48
IanStewart - thanks for looking into this. Here is what I thought -

Premise - "women who ran for state and national offices were about as likely to win as men" - Fact # 1

The conclusion says that - "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" --> women don't want to run else they will win.

Now option (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.

At best this option is Irrelevant because this is pointing to a different problem as to why women can't run.They want to but they can't because of funding issue. I thought the issues at hand are only two -

a)want to run;
b)winnability

However,option (A) says that women ran but they lost. - Agreed that this is refuting the premise,but this is a better one between A and E.
GMAT Tutor
Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 1183
Followers: 418

Kudos [?]: 1505 [1] , given: 4

Re: Last year in the United States, women who ran for state and [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 May 2015, 04:10
1
KUDOS
Expert's post
arkle wrote:
At best this option is Irrelevant because this is pointing to a different problem as to why women can't run.They want to but they can't because of funding

But this is exactly what you often want to do, when trying to weaken the conclusion of a GMAT CR argument. You often want to find an alternative explanation for the facts. Here, the conclusion is "women don't want to run in elections". The argument is just guessing that's true (it doesn't give any evidence about whether women want to run for office). The conclusion is one possible explanation for the facts in the stem. But if we had an alternative explanation for the facts in the stem, that would weaken the conclusion. And that's what E does. If E is true, that gives us a reason different from the one in the conclusion why women do not run for office. It's not because they don't want to; it's because they cannot secure funding.
_________________

GMAT Tutor in Toronto

If you are looking for online GMAT math tutoring, or if you are interested in buying my advanced Quant books and problem sets, please contact me at ianstewartgmat at gmail.com

Joined: 28 Nov 2014
Posts: 759
Followers: 12

Kudos [?]: 97 [0], given: 64

Re: Last year in the United States, women who ran for state and [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 Sep 2015, 00:43
– We have to weaken the following
1) Women don’t have the difficulty in winning the elections
2) Few Women want to run
So we will STRENGTHEN the following –
1) Women have difficulty winning the elections
2) It is NOT that a few women want to run. A lot of women wants to run.

Option E hits the nail. Satisfies part (2) of Strengthen case.
Re: Last year in the United States, women who ran for state and   [#permalink] 30 Sep 2015, 00:43

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 33 posts ]

Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
8 In the United States, of the people who moved from one state 15 22 Dec 2009, 11:54
In the United States, of the people who moved from one state 15 30 Apr 2009, 13:52
15 In the United States, of the people who moved from one state 44 10 Mar 2009, 02:31
Last year in the United States, women who ran for state and 13 04 Dec 2007, 18:24
In the United States, of the people who moved from one state 3 31 Aug 2007, 22:30
Display posts from previous: Sort by