In the 2000 local election, only 28% of individuals between

Agreed with others.

Question asks, "Which answer weakens this argument: 'Voter turnout was higher specifically because candidates targeted youth'."

A. The candidates for city council were ages 55, 72, and 64.
- Incorrect: irrelevant. Even if candidates were 19, 22, and 26, one cannot be sure that age had any bearing on voter turnout (simply because it wasn't mentioned in the argument).

B. The turnout among voters between the ages of 35 and 44 was 42% in 2004.
- Incorrect: irrelevant. We're concerned about the voter turnout of those between 18 and 25. Even if this was true, it wouldn't weaken the argument.

C. Turnout among African-Americans between 18 and 25 decreased from 2000 to 2004.
- Incorrect: irrelevant. This may be true, but we know that in general, the voter turnout for those aged 18 to 25 increased between 2000 and 2004.

D. The polls stayed open later on Election Day in 2000.
- Incorrect: irrelevant. The argument wants to prove that targeting youth caused an increase in voter turnout, not times the polls closed.

E. In 2004, a referendum on lowering the legal age for purchasing alcohol to 18 was on the ballot.
- Correct: The topic of the referendum is irrelevant (and maybe stereotypical!), although the age mentioned is key (this referendum would affect the exact age group candidates were targeting). This poses a serious question: did voter turnout increase because of the referendum, or because candidates targeted youth? This casts doubt on the argument's conclusion, therefore, we can be sure that E weakens the argument.

IMO C

For me I was stuck between C & E.

C says that "Turnout among African-Americans between 18 and 25 decreased from 2000 to 2004". Even though it doesn't represent the general % increase for the age-group 18 to 25, it weakens the argument that the candidate made efforts to make the youngsters in the age-group vote in 2004 election, resulting into increase in the 2004 election votes for the age-group 18-25. There might be other reasons for the increase to 39%.

E says that "In 2004, a referendum on lowering the legal age for purchasing alcohol to 18 was on the ballot". This actually means that candidates made an effort of bringing referendum to encourage the age-group 18 to 25 to vote in 2004 election. Therefore, this option seems to actually strengthen the argument.

Experts please help in answering this question as your inputs will help in attacking such questions irrespective of the correct answer.

Thanks.

I'm no expert, but I hope you don't mind me sharing my thoughts!



Let's put it this way:

Argument: Number of ballots cast by youth in 2000 was 220/500, but was 232/500 in 2004 -- therefore, voter turnout increased.

A - E: different groups aged 18 - 25

2000
A: 25
B: 40
C: 25
D: 40
E: 90
Voter turnout: 44%

2004
A: 5
B: 47
C: 35
D: 45
E: 100
Voter turnout: 46.4%

Despite Group A, voter turnout is still higher in 2004. Had the question stated: "... candidates made more of an effort to appeal to these younger voters all individual groups, so turnout was slightly higher at 39%", perhaps C could have been a more viable answer... yet still, B) voter turnout increased, and supposedly, it's because A) candidates appealed to younger voters -- in other words, A caused B. So, your reasoning is absolutely correct when you state, "There might be other reasons for the increase to 39%"; we must show that A may not have caused B -- and answer C does not show this.

__________



Your reasoning is correct, except that the argument does not state that candidates put the referendum on the ballot to attract youth. The argument states that during the local election, candidates increased youth voter turnout by appealing to them. How they did so is not mentioned, so we cannot assume that their strategy was to use the referendum. So, if E were true, we ask: "Did candidates successfully increase voter turnout because they targeted youth?", our answer would be: "Well, this is possible, but it is also likely that the youth turnout increased because they wanted to vote on the referendum." In other words, A or C caused B. Therefore, we cannot conclude indefinitely that A caused B.

Thanks. Really appreciate your reasoning. ....

A. The candidates for city council were ages 55, 72, and 64. Out of scope

B. The turnout among voters between the ages of 35 and 44 was 42% in 2004. Out of scope

C. Turnout among African-Americans between 18 and 25 decreased from 2000 to 2004. Others may have increased

D. The polls stayed open later on Election Day in 2000. Irrelevant

E. In 2004, a referendum on lowering the legal age for purchasing alcohol to 18 was on the ballot. It was not appeal but alcohol effect that brought the voters

This is a clear example of a question that is not an official GMAT guide question. OG-style questions should not have confusing information such as "28% of people in a certain age range voted, and at the next election the turnout was slightly higher at 39%". A real question would not call a jump from 28% to 39% a slight increase.

In a real question, the correct answer should be unequivocally correct. If you are not from the US, how would you understand the impact of lowering the legal age? And how would you know if young people care about the legality of buying alcohol?

Questions like these are the reason I ask my students to practice with only official GMAT practice questions.

What is the meaning of option D ( answer choice)

I didn't want to choose option E but other options were just irrelevant by methods of elimination.

The argument suggests that the increase in voter turnout among individuals aged 18 to 25 in the 2004 local election was due to candidates making more of an effort to appeal to these younger voters. To weaken this argument, we need to find information that suggests an alternative reason for the increase in turnout. Let's evaluate each of the answer choices:

A. The candidates for city council were ages 55, 72, and 64.
- This information does not directly address the increase in voter turnout among individuals aged 18 to 25. It focuses on the candidates' ages, which may not be relevant to the argument.

B. The turnout among voters between the ages of 35 and 44 was 42% in 2004.
- This information provides data about a different age group (35 to 44), which is not directly related to the 18 to 25 age group mentioned in the argument. It doesn't weaken the argument.

C. Turnout among African-Americans between 18 and 25 decreased from 2000 to 2004.
- This information is relevant to the 18 to 25 age group mentioned in the argument, but it doesn't necessarily weaken the argument. It suggests a decrease in turnout among a specific subgroup, but it doesn't explain the overall increase in turnout or provide an alternative reason for it.

D. The polls stayed open later on Election Day in 2000.
- This information relates to the 2000 election, not the 2004 election mentioned in the argument. It doesn't address the increase in voter turnout in 2004 and doesn't weaken the argument.

E. In 2004, a referendum on lowering the legal age for purchasing alcohol to 18 was on the ballot.
- This information is relevant to the 2004 election and the age group in question (18 to 25). It provides an alternative reason for the increase in turnout in 2004, as the presence of such a referendum might have motivated more young people to vote. Therefore, it weakens the argument by suggesting another cause for the higher turnout.

So, the correct answer is (E) because it provides an alternative explanation for the increase in voter turnout among individuals aged 18 to 25 in the 2004 local election.