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

It is currently 23 Nov 2014, 16:12

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

Political analyst: A party that temporarily positions itself

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:
2 KUDOS received
Verbal Forum Moderator
Verbal Forum Moderator
avatar
Joined: 23 Oct 2011
Posts: 286
Followers: 30

Kudos [?]: 396 [2] , given: 19

Premium Member
Political analyst: A party that temporarily positions itself [#permalink] New post 05 May 2012, 21:42
2
This post received
KUDOS
4
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  45% (medium)

Question Stats:

65% (02:49) correct 35% (01:46) wrong based on 308 sessions
Political analyst: A party that temporarily positions itself in the negligible crack between the
American right and left will do little to expand the public debate. What America needs is a
permanent third party. Some claim that America’s success stems from the two party
system.
These people say that a third party would make the passage of legislation and thus
governance impossible. Furthermore, they point to the current sluggish pace of government
as proof that the country cannot bear the burden of a third party. Yet, most European
countries have multi-party systems and few complain about any inability to govern
there.
Which of the following best describes the functions of the two sections in boldface in
the argument above?
A) The first is the main point of the argument; the second is a premise that supports that point.
b) The first opposes the premises of the argument; the second is the claim that the argument
supports.
c) The first supports the main position held by opponents of the main point; the second is a
premise that argues against that position.
d) The first is the primary claim made by opponents of the main point of the argument; the
second is evidence proposed in opposition to the first.
e) The first is a claim made by opponents of the main point of the argument; the second is the
claim that the first opposes.

Main CR Qs link - cr-qs-600-700-level-131508.html
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

_________________

********************
Push +1 kudos button please, if you like my post.

Kaplan GMAT Prep Discount CodesKnewton GMAT Discount CodesVeritas Prep GMAT Discount Codes
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 10 May 2012
Posts: 58
GMAT Date: 09-10-2012
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 10 [0], given: 14

Re: Political analyst: A party that temporarily positions itself [#permalink] New post 17 Jul 2012, 02:13
Has to be D.

Lets analyse each part of the argument separately. Choosing 2nd part first as it is straight forward an example/evidence given in opposition to the context of the passage, notice the usage of "YET". Going by POE, D is the only option.

Lets look at the first part: In the first para, author is arguing in the favor of a third party in America, but in the bolded line he says, " some claims the opposite". Hence it is a claim made by the other who do not believe in need of a third party i.e opponents.

HTH
Director
Director
User avatar
Status: Final Countdown
Joined: 17 Mar 2010
Posts: 564
Location: India
GPA: 3.82
WE: Account Management (Retail Banking)
Followers: 13

Kudos [?]: 147 [0], given: 75

Re: Political analyst: A party that temporarily positions itself [#permalink] New post 17 Jul 2012, 09:02
d) The first is the primary claim made by opponents of the main point of the argument; the
second is evidence proposed in opposition to the first.

Some claim that America’s success stems from the two party
system.


is the primary claim because it is further explained ... furthermore , they point to the current sluggish pace of government
as proof that the country cannot bear the burden of a third party.

otherwise we would have opted for (E) which says that the 1st boldface is just a claim and not the primary claim.

Yet, most European
countries have multi-party systems and few complain about any inability to govern
there.


we can figure out "yet" which is throwing contrast in opposition of the primary claim mentioned above in the boldface by quoting example of European countries.

(D) Wins.
_________________

" Make more efforts "
Press Kudos if you liked my post

Booth Thread Master
User avatar
Joined: 06 Sep 2013
Posts: 1942
Concentration: Finance
GMAT 1: 710 Q48 V39
GPA: 3.5
Followers: 20

Kudos [?]: 231 [0], given: 343

GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Political analyst: A party that temporarily positions itself [#permalink] New post 14 Oct 2013, 08:54
GetThisDone wrote:
Political analyst: A party that temporarily positions itself in the negligible crack between the
American right and left will do little to expand the public debate. What America needs is a
permanent third party. Some claim that America’s success stems from the two party
system.
These people say that a third party would make the passage of legislation and thus
governance impossible. Furthermore, they point to the current sluggish pace of government
as proof that the country cannot bear the burden of a third party. Yet, most European
countries have multi-party systems and few complain about any inability to govern
there.
Which of the following best describes the functions of the two sections in boldface in
the argument above?
A) The first is the main point of the argument; the second is a premise that supports that point.
b) The first opposes the premises of the argument; the second is the claim that the argument
supports.
c) The first supports the main position held by opponents of the main point; the second is a
premise that argues against that position.
d) The first is the primary claim made by opponents of the main point of the argument; the
second is evidence proposed in opposition to the first.
e) The first is a claim made by opponents of the main point of the argument; the second is the
claim that the first opposes.

Main CR Qs link - cr-qs-600-700-level-131508.html


Very good question here, let's try to analize it quickly.

CPX works pretty good on this one.
We actually have a nice CP, P combo.
CP= Counterpremise
P=Premise

So the first bold actually supports an opposing view and the second bold face in fact support the main conclusion of the argument
Let's take a peep at the answer choices

I think C and D are pretty close here. But note that C says that the bold face is a premise, while D says that it is the counterconclusion.
Now, the second part is very similar in both as well. So it is going to be a delicate choice. Let's proceed, shall we?
So what is the first bold actually? From my understanding, it is in fact a counterpremise as a stated before.

Some claim that America’s success stems from the two party
system.
(Counterpremise) These people say that a third party would make the passage of legislation and thus
governance impossible (Counterconclusion)

So for me the answer should be C, but I'm probably making a mistake in my reasoning.
Experts, will you shed some light on this one?
Thanks in advance
Cheers
J :)
Booth Thread Master
User avatar
Joined: 06 Sep 2013
Posts: 1942
Concentration: Finance
GMAT 1: 710 Q48 V39
GPA: 3.5
Followers: 20

Kudos [?]: 231 [0], given: 343

GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Political analyst: A party that temporarily positions itself [#permalink] New post 14 Oct 2013, 08:56
thevenus wrote:
d) The first is the primary claim made by opponents of the main point of the argument; the
second is evidence proposed in opposition to the first.

Some claim that America’s success stems from the two party
system.


is the primary claim because it is further explained ... furthermore , they point to the current sluggish pace of government
as proof that the country cannot bear the burden of a third party.

otherwise we would have opted for (E) which says that the 1st boldface is just a claim and not the primary claim.

Yet, most European
countries have multi-party systems and few complain about any inability to govern
there.


we can figure out "yet" which is throwing contrast in opposition of the primary claim mentioned above in the boldface by quoting example of European countries.

(D) Wins.


Is it really the primary claim for that reason? Check my post above. Would be happy to exchange thoughts. I think you approach is valid and you are probably correct.
But let me know your thoughts on why D over C.

Thanks
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 28 Apr 2013
Posts: 171
Location: India
GPA: 4
WE: Medicine and Health (Health Care)
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 28 [0], given: 84

Re: Political analyst: A party that temporarily positions itself [#permalink] New post 20 Nov 2013, 17:24
GetThisDone wrote:
Political analyst: A party that temporarily positions itself in the negligible crack between the
American right and left will do little to expand the public debate. What America needs is a
permanent third party. Some claim that America’s success stems from the two party
system.
These people say that a third party would make the passage of legislation and thus
governance impossible. Furthermore, they point to the current sluggish pace of government
as proof that the country cannot bear the burden of a third party. Yet, most European
countries have multi-party systems and few complain about any inability to govern
there.
Which of the following best describes the functions of the two sections in boldface in
the argument above?
A) The first is the main point of the argument; the second is a premise that supports that point.
b) The first opposes the premises of the argument; the second is the claim that the argument
supports.
c) The first supports the main position held by opponents of the main point; the second is a
premise that argues against that position.
d) The first is the primary claim made by opponents of the main point of the argument; the
second is evidence proposed in opposition to the first.
e) The first is a claim made by opponents of the main point of the argument; the second is the
claim that the first opposes.

Main CR Qs link - cr-qs-600-700-level-131508.html


The answer can be narrow down to C & D . But how to differentiate between Whether the 2nd Bold face was Premise or not ? A close look to the argument structure Premise - Main conclusion- Opponents claim- Reason- Evidence- Evidence in opposition of Opponents claim. So here we go right answer D.

Hope this helps :-D :misbrand :banana
_________________

Thanks for Posting

LEARN TO ANALYSE

+1 kudos if you like

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 09 Apr 2013
Posts: 144
Location: India
WE: Supply Chain Management (Consulting)
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 38 [0], given: 18

Re: Political analyst: A party that temporarily positions itself [#permalink] New post 03 Jan 2014, 04:30
I would like to explain why D is wrong.

d) The first is the primary claim made by opponents of the main point of the argument; the
second is evidence proposed in opposition to the first.

Furthermore, they point to the current sluggish pace of government as proof that the country cannot bear the burden of a third party. Yet, most European
countries have multi-party systems and few complain about any inability to govern there.


The second bold faced statement is not directly opposing the first but rather opposing the statement mentioned in the above passage(please look for the contrast shown here using the word "yet").
_________________

+1 KUDOS is the best way to say thanks :-)

"Those, who never do any more than they get paid for, never get paid for any more than they do"

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 20 Dec 2013
Posts: 273
Location: India
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 55 [0], given: 29

Re: Political analyst: A party that temporarily positions itself [#permalink] New post 03 Jan 2014, 04:51
D is my choice.The first BF is the counter conclusion:there shouldn't be any third party.The second BF is evidence against the counter conclusion ie premise.

Posted from my mobile device Image
GMAT Pill Representative
User avatar
Joined: 07 Nov 2012
Posts: 346
Schools: LBS '14 (A)
GMAT 1: 770 Q48 V48
Followers: 146

Kudos [?]: 191 [0], given: 4

Re: Political analyst: A party that temporarily positions itself [#permalink] New post 03 Jan 2014, 09:42
cssk wrote:
I would like to explain why D is wrong.

d) The first is the primary claim made by opponents of the main point of the argument; the
second is evidence proposed in opposition to the first.

Furthermore, they point to the current sluggish pace of government as proof that the country cannot bear the burden of a third party. Yet, most European
countries have multi-party systems and few complain about any inability to govern there.


The second bold faced statement is not directly opposing the first but rather opposing the statement mentioned in the above passage(please look for the contrast shown here using the word "yet").


Hi Cssk,

I'm afraid you are mistaken here.
D is correct.
That Europe has many parties and it works fine is evidence against "America’s success" coming "from the two party system". I.e. if Europe can succeed with many parties America can not have succeeded because of the 2 party system,

James
_________________

Former GMAT Pill student, now on staff. Used GMATPILL OG 12 and nothing else: 770 (48,48) & 6.0



... and more

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 09 Apr 2013
Posts: 144
Location: India
WE: Supply Chain Management (Consulting)
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 38 [0], given: 18

Re: Political analyst: A party that temporarily positions itself [#permalink] New post 03 Jan 2014, 11:02
I agree. Thanks plumber250 for pointing that out.
_________________

+1 KUDOS is the best way to say thanks :-)

"Those, who never do any more than they get paid for, never get paid for any more than they do"

Booth Thread Master
User avatar
Joined: 06 Sep 2013
Posts: 1942
Concentration: Finance
GMAT 1: 710 Q48 V39
GPA: 3.5
Followers: 20

Kudos [?]: 231 [0], given: 343

GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Political analyst: A party that temporarily positions itself [#permalink] New post 31 May 2014, 14:25
What do they mean by opposition to the first? To the first what?
Cheers
J :)
Booth Thread Master
User avatar
Joined: 06 Sep 2013
Posts: 1942
Concentration: Finance
GMAT 1: 710 Q48 V39
GPA: 3.5
Followers: 20

Kudos [?]: 231 [0], given: 343

GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Political analyst: A party that temporarily positions itself [#permalink] New post 31 May 2014, 14:25
What do they mean by opposition to the first? To the first what?
Cheers
J :)
Booth Thread Master
User avatar
Joined: 06 Sep 2013
Posts: 1942
Concentration: Finance
GMAT 1: 710 Q48 V39
GPA: 3.5
Followers: 20

Kudos [?]: 231 [0], given: 343

GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Political analyst: A party that temporarily positions itself [#permalink] New post 31 May 2014, 14:27
It is the primary claim because it is explained then; Furthermore…This second part is actually the premise of the passage. Hence option D is better than option C and is in fact the correct answer choice. Bite that C is wrong because the premise, (second boldface) does NOT argue against anything, it is simply a new statement that undermined the premise of the opponents. Hence D stands

Answer: D
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 22 Sep 2012
Posts: 107
Concentration: Strategy, Technology
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 36 [0], given: 39

Re: Political analyst: A party that temporarily positions itself [#permalink] New post 01 Jun 2014, 22:00
Although I selected D) , experts please comment on how we can eliminate B and E.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 15 Jan 2013
Posts: 51
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 7

Re: Political analyst: A party that temporarily positions itself [#permalink] New post 04 Jun 2014, 07:37
I couldn't decide between D and E. Can any one tell me , Why E is wrong ?

Thanks
1 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Status: GMAT Instructor
Affiliations: EnterMBA.in
Joined: 23 Jun 2013
Posts: 172
Location: India
Prasad: Hariharan
GRE 1: 2280 Q790 V710
GPA: 3.3
WE: Editorial and Writing (Education)
Followers: 6

Kudos [?]: 54 [1] , given: 4

Political analyst: A party that temporarily positions itself [#permalink] New post 04 Jun 2014, 10:21
1
This post received
KUDOS
Dear jlgdr, kinghyts, and shagalo,

They mean opposition to the first "section in bold face".

The political analyst suggests that America needs a third party. This is the main point of the analyst's argument.

The analyst first points out an "opposing claim" made by some people. This is the first bold face section. The analyst then points out an additional claim made by these people.

The analyst responds to these claims by providing "facts" (evidence) that counter the first claim (only the governance one, not the additional claim of the sluggish pace of government and the burden of a third party).

Put all these elements together, and you get D. D clearly explains the functions of the two bold face portions.

What about B and E?

B says that the first opposes the premises of the argument. What are the premises? Multi-party systems seem to be doing rather well -- a fact. The first bold face doesn't say that multi-part systems are NOT doing well; it merely upholds a different claim about the two-party system. It is perfectly acceptable for both two-party and multi-party systems to do well; one doesn't exclude or preclude the other. So the first bold face does not oppose the premises of the argument. B also says that the second is a claim that the argument supports. One can verify whether most countries have multi-party systems and whether few/many people complain about the governance. So the second bold face contains two verifiable statements, i.e. fact/evidence, not a claim.

The first part of E is correct; the first bold face portion is indeed a claim made by opponents of the main point of the argument. But the second is not a claim, as discussed above. Also, the first does not oppose the fact/evidence in the second part, as discussed above. (Another subtle point is that, if the first opposed the second, it should have come before, not after, the second, in the sequence of events.)

Evidence can effectively oppose a claim; it's absurd to imply that a claim can oppose fact.


--Prasad
_________________

GMAT and MBA admissions Coach
EnterMBA

Political analyst: A party that temporarily positions itself   [#permalink] 04 Jun 2014, 10:21
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
Insurgent political parties that are profoundly dissatisfied vjsharma25 7 12 Mar 2011, 20:27
2 In a move that surprised many political analysts, zoom612 10 29 Jun 2006, 09:35
political parties Ravshonbek 5 30 Aug 2007, 09:23
CR two party political system mahesh004 4 24 Oct 2005, 19:13
In a move that surprised many political analysts, ngobaotrung 23 09 May 2005, 23:40
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Political analyst: A party that temporarily positions itself

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


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®.