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

It is currently 20 Aug 2014, 07:01

Starting Soon:

Live Q&A Session with Cambridge Admissions Team   ||    Join Chat Room to Attend the Session


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

Total contributions by individuals to political parties were

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 29 Oct 2004
Posts: 865
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 31 [0], given: 0

GMAT Tests User
Total contributions by individuals to political parties were [#permalink] New post 25 Jan 2005, 12:32
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions
Total contributions by individuals to political parties were up 25 percent in this most recent presidential election over those of four years earlier. Hence,

it is obvious that people are no longer as apathetic as they were, but are taking a greater interest in politics.

Which of the following, if true, would considerably weaken the preceding argument?
(A) The average contribution per individual actually declined during the same four year period.
(B) Per capita income of the population increased by 15 percent during the four years in question.
(C) Public leaders continue to warn citizens against the dangers of political apathy.
(D) Contributions made by large corporations to political parties declined during the four-year period.
(E) Fewer people voted in the most recent presidential election than in the one four years earlier.
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 09 Nov 2004
Posts: 16
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 25 Jan 2005, 12:37
I would go with A.
Its the reason that would weaken the preceded statement.
If the average is less, the interest has gone down but not increased. But there could be some others(a few others) whose contribution has gone up and so it might have gone up by 25%.
whats the OA?
sleek
SVP
SVP
User avatar
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 2255
Followers: 12

Kudos [?]: 195 [0], given: 0

GMAT Tests User
 [#permalink] New post 25 Jan 2005, 13:05
I'd go with E.

If less people voted that might indicate that people are taking less interest in the politics even if total contribution increased.
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 09 Nov 2004
Posts: 16
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 25 Jan 2005, 13:17
Even if some people are interested in politics, they might not particiapte in voting and so at that time, how can you justify E?
I thought that it was specified about the monetary donations in the first sentence and anything related to that concept could be correct.
any other ideas??
SVP
SVP
User avatar
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 2255
Followers: 12

Kudos [?]: 195 [0], given: 0

GMAT Tests User
Re: CR - Total contributions by individuals to political par [#permalink] New post 25 Jan 2005, 13:39
Ok let's do it by POE.

(A) The average contribution per individual actually declined during the same four year period.
This only means more people have contributed, which strengthens the conclusion that people are more interested.

(B) Per capita income of the population increased by 15 percent during the four years in question.
This would be the best answer, in my opinion, if the number is 25 or more. Since it would indicate that the increase in political contribution is only comparable to the increase in people's income. However since 15<25, it still follows people must be more interested than before.

(C) Public leaders continue to warn citizens against the dangers of political apathy.
That says nothing about if people are more interested.

(D) Contributions made by large corporations to political parties declined during the four-year period.
This again strengthens the conclusion. If corporation contribution declined while total contribution increases, that must mean more contribution from people, thus more people interested in politics.

(E) Fewer people voted in the most recent presidential election than in the one four years earlier.
Voting is another important indicator of people's interests in politics. This fact presents an counter argument to the author's argument and thus weaken the conclusion.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
Posts: 345
Followers: 1

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

GMAT Tests User
 [#permalink] New post 25 Jan 2005, 13:52
A.

Average contribution declined means only few wealthy fat cats are rolling in dough for their special interest while majority didn't care to dig into their pockets.

What's the OA?
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 20 Jan 2005
Posts: 37
Location: Bombay
Followers: 0

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

 [#permalink] New post 25 Jan 2005, 15:02
I will go with (E). as for (A) Total contributions increased by 25% but avg contribution per person has decreased according to (A), which implies that number of people who contributed has increased ...which will actually strengthen the argument above. The choice (E) though itself weak definitly weaken the argument.
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 29 Oct 2004
Posts: 865
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 31 [0], given: 0

GMAT Tests User
 [#permalink] New post 25 Jan 2005, 15:48
OA is (E)
What about (A)? (A) means people actually put in less money, but the total is higher b/c of the incease in population??
(C) is flawed when we talk about the change in population also b/c fewer people voted is due to a decrease in population. What if the percentage of voters is still high?
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 27 Dec 2004
Posts: 910
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 0

GMAT Tests User
 [#permalink] New post 25 Jan 2005, 15:53
qhoc0010 wrote:
OA is (E)
What about (A)? (A) means people actually put in less money, but the total is higher b/c of the incease in population??
(C) is flawed when we talk about the change in population also b/c fewer people voted is due to a decrease in population. What if the percentage of voters is still high?


But A doesn't mention anything about population or are we suppose to assume population increased?
VP
VP
avatar
Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 1226
Location: Taiwan
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 58 [0], given: 0

GMAT Tests User
Re: CR - Total contributions by individuals to political par [#permalink] New post 27 Jan 2005, 10:07
qhoc0010 wrote:
Total contributions by individuals to political parties were up 25 percent in this most recent presidential election over those of four years earlier. Hence,

it is obvious that people are no longer as apathetic as they were, but are taking a greater interest in politics.

Which of the following, if true, would considerably weaken the preceding argument?
(A) The average contribution per individual actually declined during the same four year period.
(B) Per capita income of the population increased by 15 percent during the four years in question.
(C) Public leaders continue to warn citizens against the dangers of political apathy.
(D) Contributions made by large corporations to political parties declined during the four-year period.
(E) Fewer people voted in the most recent presidential election than in the one four years earlier.


It seems a little hard to me.
In the passage, the increase in total contributions made by individuals
and the decrease in the average contribution mean the number of population must increase. And increase in the population just weaken the argument; that is, the reason is not because of greater interest in politics but because of increase in population. doesn't weaken?

To me, E is out of scope. The vote rate doesn't necessarily mean people's attitude toward politics, it probably is weather factor which influences the vote rate.

Could anybody give me some help?
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 29 Oct 2004
Posts: 865
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 31 [0], given: 0

GMAT Tests User
 [#permalink] New post 27 Jan 2005, 13:10
I agree with you on this one.
The premise makes a connection between "contribution" (or $$) and "interest in politics". Now, for a GMAT common sense, in order to weaken the argument, we must break this connection.
(E) says "fewer people voted", which I don't think that it has anything to do with $$. I mean "What if the population decreases?"
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 20 Jan 2005
Posts: 37
Location: Bombay
Followers: 0

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

 [#permalink] New post 27 Jan 2005, 14:43
We need not break the connection. But, if we can negate the assumption then also we can weaken the argument, this is what I believe is happening in (E).

By an increase in total of 25% the author indicates awareness in more people which also means that he assumes that it is because of more people contributing (and not because more contri per person).

Statement (E) just states that no of people Dec. i.e. it negates the assumption .... do I make any sense to anybody ???
VP
VP
avatar
Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 1226
Location: Taiwan
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 58 [0], given: 0

GMAT Tests User
 [#permalink] New post 28 Jan 2005, 05:18
Hello,

Who could tell me why A is wrong?

:cry:
VP
VP
avatar
Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 1226
Location: Taiwan
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 58 [0], given: 0

GMAT Tests User
 [#permalink] New post 29 Jan 2005, 07:31
thanks, I've understand why choice A is wrong.

The increase in the number of population who made contribution means people are more and more interested in politics.

So, strengthen the argument.
  [#permalink] 29 Jan 2005, 07:31
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
A total of 22 men and 26 women were at a party, and the goalsnr 2 14 May 2008, 13:52
political parties Ravshonbek 5 30 Aug 2007, 09:23
The rules that govern political contributions are less vineetgupta 7 23 Jun 2007, 19:03
Total contribution by individuals to political parties were ps_dahiya 8 31 Dec 2005, 01:57
The rules that govern political contributions are less forrestgump 4 14 May 2005, 07:03
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Total contributions by individuals to political parties were

  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®.