How can number of informed voters can help to evalute argument without any info about total number of voters?
Let's say we know that number of informed voters is 100. If total number of voters is also 100 then, yeah, it makes sense, endorsement positions affect votes. But if the total number is 1 million, we hardly can say that endosments affect anything.
I'm happy to respond.
What you are asking is something extremely subtle, and hard to address. On the one hand, it is very important to read the text of the GMAT CR extremely carefully, because each word matters. On the other hand, there is such a thing as being too literal
---that will get you in BIG trouble, both on the GMAT and in the real business world. BTW, being too literal is also a total trainwreck in friendships and romantic relationships! It's a big problem!
Here is the OA. (E) How many voters in each of these two counties were aware of their respective Congressman's endorsement positions.
Suppose we asked someone that as a question. If the person we asked gave the hyper-literal answer, "86 in Mountain County and 154 in Sunrise county
," that would be a grossly incomplete answer. The person who gave that answer would either be not particularly bright or would be trolling us. That would not be an intelligent answer in all good faith. A good faith answer would give us a sense of the proportions or percents in each county, because that's truly informative, whereas it's patently obvious that the numbers in the incomplete answer, by themselves, are meaningless.
When we have these "evaluation the argument" problems, the five answer choices are questions. For the purposes of evaluating the argument, we have to assume that if we were to ask any of these answer choices as questions, we would get intelligent answers in good faith. In other words, we would assume that we would be asking well informed people who would be disposed to help us understand that particular point. We are not asking people who jesuitically try to keep us in the dark by answering us with a meaningless half-truth.
This is as much an emotional distinction as a cognitive distinction. Does this make sense?
Magoosh Test Prep