Astorga’s campaign promises are apparently just an attempt to please

B finally after so much thinking for me

I was initially confused between E,D,B,A
A.If she is elected mayor, Astorga will not be capable of carrying out the campaign promises she has made.

(B) The opinion polls on which Astorga’s promises are based do not accurately reflect what voters want the new mayor to do.

(E) Astorga does not actually intend, if elected, to do what she has learned from the public opinion polls that voters want the new mayor to do

The argument states that her decision to implement choices from opinion polls --- will mean that the public are not being told what she intends to do if she becomes mayor.

The argument relies on the option B because if the polls do not reflect the voters opinion about what the mayor should do and she says she will implement them then the voters are not being told what she intends to do if she becomes mayor

E that assumes she wont keep up her promises but even if she wont keep up her promises that means voters are told one thing when she intends another, but not that voters are not told what she intends to do, also what she thinks i am doubtful if it falls under the criteria.

It could also be D because the assumption that most people wont vote for her because they think she might keep up her promises or might not keep up her promises as the voters are not being told clearly what she intends to do.

E for me .. for sure .. Thanks for the Question

As for people saying B, B directly negates the argument .. and an assumption should should be against the underlying argument.Hence B can be safely negated.

E for sure.

Let's ask ourselves this question: What if Ms. Astorga actually frames her planned post-victory policy on opinion polls of what the people want? This destroys the argument that Ms. Astorga is deceiving voters.

Cheers,
Der alte Fritz.

I am no expert but this is my take.

Conclusion : voters are not being told what Astorga actually intends to do if she becomes mayor.

Choice A : If she is elected mayor, Astorga will not be capable of carrying out the campaign promises she has made. The conclusion only talks about intention and capability is out of scope. By negating this statement we get : "If she is elected mayor, Astorga might be capable of carrying out the campaign promises she has made". This clearly has no bearing on the conclusion and the conclusion still remains intact.

Choice B : The opinion polls on which Astorga’s promises are based do not accurately reflect what voters want the new mayor to do. Again this is out of scope. By negating this statement we get : "The opinion polls on which Astorga’s promises are based might accurately reflect what voters want the new mayor to do. "This clearly has no bearing on the conclusion and the conclusion still remains intact.

Choice C : Most voters are unlikely to be persuaded by Astorga’s campaign promises to vote for her in the mayoral election. Again this is out of scope. By negating this statement we get : " Most voters might be persuaded by Astorga’s campaign promises to vote for her in the mayoral election." This clearly has no bearing on the conclusion and the conclusion still remains intact.

Choice D : Astorga has no strong opinions of her own about what the new mayor ought to do in office. This might be a bit tricky because this does seem to speak about Astorga's intentions. However on negating this statement we get : "Astorga has strong opinions of her own about what the new mayor ought to do in office." This does not have any bearing on the conclusion. Regardless off what her opinions are, the conclusion only states that voters are not being told what Astorga actually intends to do if she becomes mayor. Infact this negation might actually strengthen the conclusion a bit. If Astorga has her own strong opinions then she might not intend on delivering the promises she made based on the opinion polls.

Choice E : Astorga does not actually intend, if elected, to do what she has learned from the public opinion polls that voters want the new mayor to do. This assumption seems quite straightforward. If she does not intend to do what she has learned from the public opinion polls that voters want the new mayor to do, then the voters are not being told of her intentions. Negating this we get : "Astorga might actually intend, if elected, to do what she has learned from the public opinion polls that voters want the new mayor to do.". This clearly kills the conclusion. If she intends to do what she has learned from the public opinion polls and the voters are being told the same. Then clearly the voters are being told of her intentions.

So E is the right answer.

I tried again and i got it right,i have tried to make it simpler, my take is as follows:-

Opinion polls tells that people vote for the contestants who tell the people that what the contestant will do after becoming the mayor, so this way, the voters are fooled by the contestants because the voters tells (in news channel etc ) what they expect and the contestants just repeat the same in order to persuade the voters.
Now, the voters don't believe this and so do they don't listen to the contestants who repeat the same words of the contestants.
Astorga (and her party) is not telling the voters that what she is planning to do once elected, BECAUSE voters will know that what she and her party is telling are just those rosy words which actually the voters demand.Astorga can't even tell about her actual plans too because then also she will loose, because Astorga doesn't know what to do after being elected {.....What she says she will do if elected mayor is simply what she has learned from opinion polls}

(E) tells us that Astorga does'nt want the voters to know (apparently her party and she are not revealing their agenda , because they think that the voters will trust them this way and vote because she and her party is not trying to persuade the voters.

I thot of E but I got stumped by the words "questionable assumption". Can somebody kindly explain what the question stem is actually asking?

You really have to love how critical reasoning questions are worded sometimes. This question asks you to find the questionable assumption in the argument but what is a 'questionable assumption'? Simply stated, nearly all assumptions are questionable - meaning they may or may not be true. If the assumption is true then the conclusion is supported but if the assumption is false the conclusion is weakened or destroyed. In this question, we don't know what the mayoral candidate actual intends so we have some 'questions' about the intent of the candidate and if the assumption is true the conclusion is strengthened but if it's false the conclusion is weakened/destroyed.

You will find that on GMAT critical reasoning questions the wording is twisted up to confuse you. Why didn't they just ask you to find 'the assumption' instead of finding 'the questionable assumption' if they mean essentially the same thing? To confuse you enough to get you to waste time or miss the problem entirely. Just figure out the essence of the question and don't let yourself be confused by the roundabout wording. [BTW - this is my favorite example of roundabout CR question wording and it also happens to be on an assumption question: 'Which of the following is an assumption that supports drawing the conclusion above from the reason given for that conclusion?' Crazy wording that just means 'find the assumption'.]
KW

Posted from my mobile device

The conclusion talks about Astorga intends, hence we also have to find a statement that deals with her intention to do something rather than with her ability.

Most of the ACs focus on the result or likelihood of her actions once mayor, however, AC "E" correctly addresses the intent we are looking for.

Astorga’s campaign promises are apparently just an attempt to please voters. What she says she will do if elected mayor is simply what she has learned from opinion polls that voters want the new mayor to do. Therefore, voters are not being told what Astorga actually intends to do if she becomes mayor.

Which of the following is a questionable assumption on which the argument relies?

Is there any difference between what Astorga intends to do and what she promises?
This is actually the core of the argument. A candidate may or may not promise what opinion polls suggest but the argument, in a definite manner, suggests that there is a difference between promised and intended action.

(A) If she is elected mayor, Astorga will not be capable of carrying out the campaign promises she has made. - WRONG. Goes in an irrelevant direction.

(B) The opinion polls on which Astorga’s promises are based do not accurately reflect what voters want the new mayor to do. - WRONG. Irrelevant. Like A this is also diverted in direction.

(C) Most voters are unlikely to be persuaded by Astorga’s campaign promises to vote for her in the mayoral election. - WRONG. Irrelevant.

(D) Astorga has no strong opinions of her own about what the new mayor ought to do in office. - WRONG. Looks somewhat impacting the argument but it's not. Irrelevant.

(E) Astorga does not actually intend, if elected, to do what she has learned from the public opinion polls that voters want the new mayor to do - CORRECT. Yes, this shows the difference in possible action later on.

Answer E.

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.