Nice explanation. I was caught in the trap. Will beware. Thanks.
manugmat123 wrote:
Following a state-wide boom in voter registration and participation, Lakeview's election board claimed that the increased participation in its precinct resulted from the new busing campaign that brought many voters to their neighborhood polling station on Election Day.
Which of the following, if it could be carried out, would be most useful in an
evaluation of Lakeview's assessment of the causes of the increased voter participation in its precinct?
(A) Determining the average increase in voter participation in each neighborhood of Lakeview.
(B) Using polling data to predict the participation rates for the upcoming election in Lakeview's precinct.
(C) Comparing the total number of voters participating when the busing campaign brought them to their neighborhood polling station to the total number of voters participating before the busing campaign.
(D) Comparing the increase in voter participation in Lakeview to the increase in participation in precincts demographically similar to Lakeview that did not implement busing campaigns.
(E) Comparing the long-term impact of the busing campaign on Lakeview's voter registration patterns with the short-term impact of the busing campaign on Lakeview's voter participation.
Correct Answer: D
The comparison suggested in D would be useful in evaluating Lakeview's assessment of the causes of the increase in its voter participation. If the increase in voting is as great in precincts that are, except for the existence of busing campaigns, demographically similar to Lakeview, then the conclusion is undermined. However, if the increase in participation is not as great in such precincts as in Lakeview, the election board's claim is supported. Thus, choice D is the best answer.
Choices A and B are both inappropriate because they concern only the rates of participation, and do not assess a hypothesis of the causes of participation.
Choices C and E suggest comparisons that would not assess the election board's claim about this election.
Rather, choices C and E suggest comparisons of separate elections within Lakeview, where factors other than the busing campaign may cause different rates of participation.
The state has seen a boom in voter registration and participation.
Lakeview, a precinct, experienced an increased participation.
Lakeview's election board claimed it is because of the busing campaign.
We need to evaluate this claim - whether busing campaign played a role.
(A) Determining the average increase in voter participation in each neighborhood of Lakeview.
Dividing Lakeview into neighbourhoods and comparing those will not help evaluate if busing campaign helped. We know that busing campaign was run across the precinct to bring people to their neighbourhood polling station.
(B) Using polling data to predict the participation rates for the upcoming election in Lakeview's precinct.
Any prediction will not help in arriving at the reason.
(C) Comparing the total number of voters participating when the busing campaign brought them to their neighborhood polling station to the total number of voters participating before the busing campaign.
The most tricky one - we want to compare numbers before and after the busing campaign. Sure. But how does that help? We already know that "after" numbers are greater than "before" numbers. The argument says "increased numbers in Lakeview". Say I find that participation was 50% before and is 60% now. How does this tell me whether the busing campaign helped or something else? There has been a state wide boom in numbers and in Lakeview too.
(D) Comparing the increase in voter participation in Lakeview to the increase in participation in precincts demographically similar to Lakeview that did not implement busing campaigns.
Now this makes sense. When the comparison is with "similar units", it is often relevant. Comparing with demographically similar precincts, if we see that other precincts have seen a similar increase too without the busing campaign, it is possible that a second factor is causing increase everywhere. If other similar precincts which had no busing campaign did not see an increase, it increases the probability that busing campaign helped in increasing participation.
(E) Comparing the long-term impact of the busing campaign on Lakeview's voter registration patterns with the short-term impact of the busing campaign on Lakeview's voter participation.
Irrelevant.
Answer (D)
On the way to get into the B-school and I will not leave it until I win. WHATEVER IT TAKES.
" I CAN AND I WILL"