vishalsinghvs08 wrote:
Catering to the interests of national party officials sometimes conflicts with serving the interests of a provincial or state official???s local constituencies.
Negation -Catering to the interests of national party officials never conflicts with serving the interests of a provincial or state official???s local constituencies. This destroys the argument.
(C) The interests of local constituencies are well served only by elected officials who do not cater to the interests of national party officials.
Negation 1 - The interests of local constituencies are well served not only by elected officials who do not cater to the interests of national party officials. Does not destroy the argument.
Negation 2 - The interests of local constituencies are well served only by elected officials who cater to the interests of national party officials. Could a contender.
Since the negation leads to conflicting results. I will go with A.
Is my understanding correct here? Please help. Thank you
The negation test can be tricky to implement, partly because there are often multiple ways to negate an answer choice. Another way to think about assumption questions is to ask, "does this answer choice NEED to be true in order for the author's argument to hold up?"
Here's (C):
Quote:
The interests of local constituencies are well served only by elected officials who do not cater to the interests of national party officials.
The word "only" stands out here. Does it
need to be true that locals can ONLY be well served by provincial/state officials who don't cater to national interests?
Nope, that goes too far. The author concludes that "the elected officials who campaign for reelection while they are in office thus
OFTEN fail to serve the interests of their local consistencies." So, the author doesn't say that provincial/state officials who serve national interests ALWAYS stink. They just
often fail to serve local interests. There may be a few provincial/state officials who can serve
both national and local interests. That means that we don't NEED to assume the information in (C).
Compare that to (A):
Quote:
Catering to the interests of national party officials sometimes conflicts with serving the interests of a provincial or state official’s local constituencies.
The word "sometimes" is important in (A). To conclude that provincial/state officials seeking reelection sometimes fail their local constituents, it must be true that
sometimes the local and national interests conflict.
We absolutely need the info in (A) in order for the argument to hold up, so (A) is an assumption made by the argument.
I hope that helps!
_________________
GMAT/GRE/EA tutors @
www.gmatninja.com (
hiring!) |
YouTube |
Articles |
IG Beginners' Guides:
RC |
CR |
SC |
Complete Resource Compilations:
RC |
CR |
SC YouTube LIVE webinars:
all videos by topic +
24-hour marathon for UkraineQuestion Explanation Collections:
RC |
CR |
SC