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

It is currently 25 Oct 2014, 11:24

Close

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
Your Progress

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

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

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

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 12 Oct 2008
Posts: 558
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 77 [0], given: 2

Last year in the United States, women who ran for state and [#permalink] New post 23 Feb 2009, 16:59
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

75% (01:50) correct 25% (02:02) wrong based on 7 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.
4 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 10 Jan 2009
Posts: 111
Followers: 11

Kudos [?]: 143 [4] , given: 0

Re: CR: Women [#permalink] New post 24 Feb 2009, 10:00
4
This post received
KUDOS
ritula wrote:
Though I find A as the best. but i wanna know wht is wrong with E?

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?

------------------

Hi ritula,


There's nothing wrong with option E. IMHO, in fact, everything is right with option E.

Premise 1: Last year in the United States, women who ran for state and national offices were about as likely to win as men.

Premise 2: Only about fifteen percent of the candidates for these offices were women.

Conclusion: There are few women who win elections for these offices not because they have difficulty winning elections but because very few of them want to run.

What can we do to weaken the conclusion? We can attack (weaken) either of the following points:
1. not because they have difficulty winning elections
2. but because very few of them want to run

Explanation:

(A) Last year the proportion of women incumbents who won reelection was smaller than the proportion of men incumbents who won reelection. ---> It's more like a Red-Herring. Though, we are talking about election, we are not concerned about what happens during re-election. I have no problem accepting this option as a distraction.

Still if someone is not OK with this explanation, here's for you: I assume the above statement to be true but I would also like to add that the proportion of women incumbents who won normal elections (where no reelection was held) was far greater than the proportion of men incumbents who won normal elections. If this is true, you cannot say that the argument is undermined.

(B) Few women who run for state and national offices run against other women. ---> I found this tricky. One woman competes against another woman but that does not affect the argument. Why?

w.r.t. Point 1: This option does not show why they have difficulty winning elections. Whether a woman fights against a man or a woman, how does it matter? Is she facing difficulty in winning? No!

w.r.t. Point 2: This option only states that few women run for elections but it DOES NOT state why only few of them are interested in contesting elections.

(C) Most women who have no strong desire to be politicians never run for state and national offices. ---> This actually strengthens the conclusion by stating that many of them aren't interested in running for elections.

(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.
---> Irrelevant.

(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. ---> This very clearly attacks (weakens) point 1. Lack of funds for campaigning can be a major factor for someone's defeat in an election.
-----------------------

So, my choice is option E.

Hope that helps.


Regards,
Technext
_________________

+++ Believe me, it doesn't take much of an effort to underline SC questions. Just try it out. +++
+++ Please tell me why other options are wrong. +++

~~~ The only way to get smarter is to play a smarter opponent. ~~~

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 06 Mar 2006
Posts: 497
Followers: 7

Kudos [?]: 80 [0], given: 1

Re: CR: Women [#permalink] New post 23 Feb 2009, 19:16
reply2spg 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.


Answer choice B women run office against other women is irrelevant
C is wrong. This actually strengthen the argument
D is wrong people holding local office is out of scope
E is wrong cannot get adequate funding is irrelevant.

I am going with A
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 02 Nov 2008
Posts: 283
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 34 [0], given: 2

Re: CR: Women [#permalink] New post 23 Feb 2009, 21:37
A since it discusses proportions (which essentially means likelihood)
VP
VP
User avatar
Joined: 18 May 2008
Posts: 1300
Followers: 13

Kudos [?]: 127 [0], given: 0

Re: CR: Women [#permalink] New post 24 Feb 2009, 04:15
Though I find A as the best. but i wanna know wht is wrong with E?
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 04 Jan 2009
Posts: 243
Followers: 1

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

Re: CR: Women [#permalink] New post 24 Feb 2009, 09:46
ritula wrote:
Though I find A as the best. but i wanna know wht is wrong with E?


In E, the ability to secure funding is talked about. We are not talking about this ability; but just plain ability of women to win elections. Hence, incumbents ran but lost implies to me that it is not for lack of want in women but their ability to win that they lost.
_________________

-----------------------
tusharvk

Retired Moderator
User avatar
Joined: 18 Jul 2008
Posts: 997
Followers: 8

Kudos [?]: 77 [0], given: 5

Re: CR: Women [#permalink] New post 24 Feb 2009, 11:02
My take goes to E. It directly weakens the argument.
Intern
Intern
User avatar
Joined: 09 Jan 2009
Posts: 23
Schools: SDSU
Followers: 0

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

Re: CR: Women [#permalink] New post 24 Feb 2009, 16:09
bigfernhead wrote:
My take goes to E. It directly weakens the argument.


My choice is E which raise another reason why few women win election. A is irrlevant, it offers re-election.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 26 May 2008
Posts: 432
Schools: Kellogg Class of 2012
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 58 [0], given: 4

Re: CR: Women [#permalink] New post 24 Feb 2009, 19:38
Clear E

Cheers,
Unplugged
VP
VP
User avatar
Joined: 18 May 2008
Posts: 1300
Followers: 13

Kudos [?]: 127 [0], given: 0

Re: CR: Women [#permalink] New post 24 Feb 2009, 20:13
YEssssssssssss......that clearls my doubt. Thanks Technext +1 frm me
Technext wrote:
ritula wrote:
Though I find A as the best. but i wanna know wht is wrong with E?

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?

------------------

Hi ritula,


There's nothing wrong with option E. IMHO, in fact, everything is right with option E.

Premise 1: Last year in the United States, women who ran for state and national offices were about as likely to win as men.

Premise 2: Only about fifteen percent of the candidates for these offices were women.

Conclusion: There are few women who win elections for these offices not because they have difficulty winning elections but because very few of them want to run.

What can we do to weaken the conclusion? We can attack (weaken) either of the following points:
1. not because they have difficulty winning elections
2. but because very few of them want to run

Explanation:

(A) Last year the proportion of women incumbents who won reelection was smaller than the proportion of men incumbents who won reelection. ---> It's more like a Red-Herring. Though, we are talking about election, we are not concerned about what happens during re-election. I have no problem accepting this option as a distraction.

Still if someone is not OK with this explanation, here's for you: I assume the above statement to be true but I would also like to add that the proportion of women incumbents who won normal elections (where no reelection was held) was far greater than the proportion of men incumbents who won normal elections. If this is true, you cannot say that the argument is undermined.

(B) Few women who run for state and national offices run against other women. ---> I found this tricky. One woman competes against another woman but that does not affect the argument. Why?

w.r.t. Point 1: This option does not show why they have difficulty winning elections. Whether a woman fights against a man or a woman, how does it matter? Is she facing difficulty in winning? No!

w.r.t. Point 2: This option only states that few women run for elections but it DOES NOT state why only few of them are interested in contesting elections.

(C) Most women who have no strong desire to be politicians never run for state and national offices. ---> This actually strengthens the conclusion by stating that many of them aren't interested in running for elections.

(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.
---> Irrelevant.

(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. ---> This very clearly attacks (weakens) point 1. Lack of funds for campaigning can be a major factor for someone's defeat in an election.
-----------------------

So, my choice is option E.

Hope that helps.


Regards,
Technext
Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 04 Jan 2008
Posts: 919
Followers: 53

Kudos [?]: 183 [0], given: 17

Re: CR: Women [#permalink] New post 24 Feb 2009, 21:37
we have to show
"women have difficulty winning elections"
IMO E

reply2spg 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.

_________________

math-polygons-87336.html
competition-for-the-best-gmat-error-log-template-86232.html

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 01 Dec 2008
Posts: 64
Followers: 0

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

Re: CR: Women [#permalink] New post 25 Feb 2009, 02:25
I agree with option E.

We can further significantly undermine option A, which states that the ratio of incumbent women candidates winning reelections is lower compared to their male counterparts.
The incumbent woman candidate may be facing another woman, in this case a woman will still win an election.
Since the woman candidate has lost an election the ratio of incumbent woman candidates reelected to office will decrease.
Nowhere does this option prove that woman are incapable of winning elections or their unwillingness to participate in elections
Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 25 Oct 2006
Posts: 652
Followers: 7

Kudos [?]: 198 [0], given: 6

Re: CR: Women [#permalink] New post 25 Feb 2009, 03:52
Agree, E it is.....:)

Nice explanation from Technext.......
_________________

If You're Not Living On The Edge, You're Taking Up Too Much Space

Retired Moderator
User avatar
Joined: 18 Jul 2008
Posts: 997
Followers: 8

Kudos [?]: 77 [0], given: 5

Re: CR: Women [#permalink] New post 27 Feb 2009, 06:07
OA PLEASE.
Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 25 Oct 2008
Posts: 609
Location: Kolkata,India
Followers: 9

Kudos [?]: 196 [0], given: 100

Re: CR: Women [#permalink] New post 14 Aug 2009, 17:57
Guys I didnt understand.
Quote:
What can we do to weaken the conclusion? We can attack (weaken) either of the following points:
1. not because they have difficulty winning elections
2. but because very few of them want to run


Option E is STRENTHENING the second pt.,saying YES very few women run albeit for a different reason.Please explain.
_________________

countdown-beginshas-ended-85483-40.html#p649902

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 10 Dec 2008
Posts: 484
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 760 Q49 V44
GPA: 3.9
Followers: 29

Kudos [?]: 121 [0], given: 12

Re: CR: Women [#permalink] New post 14 Aug 2009, 20:02
tejal777 wrote:
Option E is STRENTHENING the second pt.,saying YES very few women run albeit for a different reason.Please explain.


You have to read more carefully. The premise states that "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". This directly attacks the argument, which states that women DO NOT want to run. This says that women MAY want to run but of those who DO, at least some CAN'T.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 11 Aug 2009
Posts: 129
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 26 [0], given: 3

Re: CR: Women [#permalink] New post 21 Aug 2009, 07:06
OA?
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 05 Jun 2009
Posts: 852
WE 1: 7years (Financial Services - Consultant, BA)
Followers: 8

Kudos [?]: 189 [0], given: 106

Re: CR: Women [#permalink] New post 21 Aug 2009, 08:45
Agree with E.

Great detailed explanation from Technext! [+1]

Technext wrote:
What can we do to weaken the conclusion? We can attack (weaken) either of the following points:
1. not because they have difficulty winning elections
2. but because very few of them want to run


for point 1 above, there is already premises stating that last year women were as likely to win as men. IMO, we shouldn't attack the point 1 as there is already a support for the argument in point 1. Only point 2 stands with no support and should be attacked.
_________________

Consider kudos for the good post ... :beer
My debrief : journey-670-to-720-q50-v36-long-85083.html

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 13 May 2008
Posts: 7
Followers: 0

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

Re: CR: Women [#permalink] New post 21 Aug 2009, 10:17
I think the answer is A.

The question asked was "Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the conclusion given?"

The conclusion given was "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."

So something that undermines the conclusion should support either "women have difficulty winning elections" (1) or "the number of women who want to run is not so few" (2) or both.

A shows an evident that even those women who want to run (those running for re-election) had difficulty winning elections as compared to men. So it supports (1).

E didn't support (2), because it only implies that women are more likely to fail to get funding and as a result not run for the state. It doesn't imply that there are more women who want to run than men.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 25 Jul 2009
Posts: 331
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 27 [0], given: 0

Re: CR: Women [#permalink] New post 21 Aug 2009, 11:00
its clear E...
Re: CR: Women   [#permalink] 21 Aug 2009, 11:00
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
3 Last year, medical schools in the United States received rohityes 10 11 Mar 2010, 02:19
Last year in the United States, women who ran for state and Skewed 13 04 Dec 2007, 18:24
A representative of the Womens Bureau of the United States Apoorva81 2 20 Nov 2006, 21:07
A representative of the Womens Bureau of the United States ywilfred 2 31 Aug 2005, 06:37
2 Experts publish their posts in the topic A representative of the Womens Bureau of the United States ashkg 6 11 Jul 2005, 19:50
Display posts from previous: Sort by

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

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 28 posts ] 



GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Privacy Policy| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group and phpBB SEO

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.