Political Analyst: Because our city is a border city, unauthorized imm

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

The analyst argues that the mayoral candidate who opposes the deportation plan will win the governor’s race because 60% of city residents also oppose the plan. The analyst assumes that a majority of residents will vote for this candidate based on his position on unauthorized immigration. Any statement that calls this assumption into question will weaken the argument. You are looking for the one statement that does NOT call this assumption into question.

(A) This statement calls into question the assumption that voters will cast their ballots based on the unauthorized immigration issue. Therefore, this statement weakens the analyst's argument.

(B) CORRECT. This does not weaken the argument. In fact, if some of those who support the plan are willing to reconsider, they may ultimately oppose the original plan and decide to vote for the candidate who is also in opposition. If anything, this would help justify the analyst's claim that the candidate who opposes the plan will win the election.

(C) This statement calls into question the assumption that a majority of residents will vote for the candidate who opposes the plan. If many of these residents are not registered voters, they will not be able to vote, regardless of their position on the immigration issue. This weakens the argument.

(D) This calls into question the assumption that the residents will vote based on the unauthorized immigration issue. This statement shows that voters have a history of voting for the incumbent despite his controversial position on important issues. It is possible that the voters will again vote for the incumbent, even if he has taken an unpopular position on the unauthorized immigration issue. This weakens the argument.

(E) If just under 30% of the residents are unauthorized immigrants, it is likely that many of the 60% in opposition to the plan are actually unauthorized immigrants themselves. If these individuals can’t vote, it is less likely that the candidate who opposes the plan will win.

My choice is D. The conclusion is not drawn on the basis of candidate's performance but on the illegal immigrant issue at hand hence does not effect analyst's argument. Also, all other options are in some way or the other related to premise.

B here as well.

Took me a while to figure it out but heres my explanation:

B says the 35% people who support the plan aren't really sure so they might switch to the other candidate. This supports the analyst argument that the person who oppose the plan will win the election.

It's B.
Analysis of Argument :- illegal immigration is an important issue. One candidate plans to deport illegal immigrants whereas other does not. 60% of residents opposed the plan whereas 35% supported it. So the conclusion is, the candidate who oppose the plan will win the election because he enjoys support of 60% residents. There are several things which must have assumed while drawing the conclusion and if did not they will weaken the conclusion. Any choice that contain reasoning reverse of them will be incorrect here 1) all or substantial residents do posses the voting right. 2) all or substantial residents that oppose the plan would actually vote on election day. 3) all or substantial residents that oppose the plan would cast their votes to the candidate who also oppose this plan.

A) Incorrect. This clearly weakens the argument by saying voters do not vote on the basis of candidates' position on illegal migration

B) This choice stays neutral and is correct answer.

C) Incorrect. If substatial voters who oppose the plan have no voting rights then it is difficult for that candidate to win. Weakens the argument.

D) Incorrect. This says there are other factors than illegal immigration on which voters decides whom to vote. Otherwise the candidate who supports the plan would have not been elected again and again

E) This choice seems not to weakens the argument at first(so i kept it as a contender initially) but if look closely it reveals that the residents are devided in three sections 60%(opposers), 35%(supporters), and 5%(neutral). Now the percentage of illegal immigrants is possibily 28% or 29% (just under 30%)and those should must be in 60% section. if those 28% have no voting rights then the candidate who oppose the plan would left with only 32% supporters who can actually vote and can not win the election with that. This weakens the argument. Incorrect.

The part I've highlighted in red is not quite right, mathematically. Say you have 100 people:

--> 60 oppose the plan
--> 35 support the plan
--> 5 are neutral

but we know 30 of these people are illegal immigrants and cannot vote. Assuming they all oppose the plan, when we remove those 30 people from the opposition, we have:

--> 30 oppose the plan
--> 35 support the plan
--> 5 are neutral

The total number of people is now much less than 100. So we don't have 30% opposition; we have 30/70 = 43% opposition. And if you group the opposition with those who are neutral, then you find that 50% of all people are either in opposition or are neutral (and more than 50% are if you take into account that the number of illegal immigrants is actually 'just under 30%').

So while I agree that E weakens the analyst's argument, it would be a mistake to conclude from E that a majority of actual voters will support the plan; that's still untrue even using E.

We have to look for an answer choice which says that the candidate who does not support the plan will win the election. "A" states that the voter's decision primarily rests on this plan. "C" is irrelevant because the voters are not even registered; so their decision becomes invalid. "D" clearly states that the plan is being supported. Again "E" is irrelevant because it talks about people who are not in a position to vote. Hence "B" is the answer.

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.