|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
CR Forum Moderator
Joined: 02 Oct 2009
Posts: 470
Location: Bangalore,India
WE 1: 4yrs in IT Industry
Followers: 16
Kudos [?]:
66
[1] , given: 268
|
When politicians resort to personal attacks, many [#permalink]
 13 May 2010, 07:30
1
This post received
KUDOS
Question Stats:
24% (02:06) correct
75% (01:23) wrong based on 0 sessions
When politicians resort to personal attacks, many editorialists criticize these attacks but most voters pay them scant attention. Everyone knows such attacks will end after election day, and politicians can be excused for mudslinging. Political commentators, however, cannot be. Political commentators should be engaged in sustained and serious debate about ideas and policies. In such a context personal attacks on opponents serve not to beat those opponents but to cut off the debate.
Which of the following most accurately states the main point of the argument?
(A) Personal attacks on opponents serve a useful purpose for politicians.
(B) Political commentators should not resort to personal attacks on their opponents.
(C) Editorialists are right to criticize politicians who resort to personal attacks on their opponents.
(D) The purpose of serious debate about ideas and policies is to counteract the effect of personal attacks by politicians.
(E) Voters should be concerned about the personal attacks politicians make on each other.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 01 Feb 2010
Posts: 275
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
30
[0], given: 2
|
Re: politicians personal attacks [#permalink]
13 May 2010, 08:42
RaviChandra wrote: When politicians resort to personal attacks, many editorialists criticize these attacks but most voters pay them scant attention. Everyone knows such attacks will end after election day, and politicians can be excused for mudslinging. Political commentators, however, cannot be. Political commentators should be engaged in sustained and serious debate about ideas and policies. In such a context personal attacks on opponents serve not to beat those opponents but to cut off the debate.
Which of the following most accurately states the main point of the argument?
(A) Personal attacks on opponents serve a useful purpose for politicians.
(B) Political commentators should not resort to personal attacks on their opponents.
(C) Editorialists are right to criticize politicians who resort to personal attacks on their opponents.
(D) The purpose of serious debate about ideas and policies is to counteract the effect of personal attacks by politicians.
(E) Voters should be concerned about the personal attacks politicians make on each other. I would go with D. Debate seems to be main point of concern for the author in passage and D describes purpose of Debate over personal attacks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 01 Apr 2008
Posts: 921
Schools: IIM Lucknow (IPMX) - Class of 2014
Followers: 8
Kudos [?]:
124
[0], given: 18
|
Re: politicians personal attacks [#permalink]
13 May 2010, 08:57
I go with B.
OA?
|
|
|
|
|
|
SVP
Joined: 17 Feb 2010
Posts: 1570
Followers: 12
Kudos [?]:
121
[0], given: 6
|
Re: politicians personal attacks [#permalink]
13 May 2010, 12:46
it is between B and D.
i pick (D) and would also appreciate if someone can explain the premise in simple words.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 24 Jul 2009
Posts: 301
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
51
[1] , given: 0
|
Re: politicians personal attacks [#permalink]
13 May 2010, 14:20
1
This post received
KUDOS
RaviChandra wrote: When politicians resort to personal attacks, many editorialists criticize these attacks but most voters pay them scant attention. Everyone knows such attacks will end after election day, and politicians can be excused for mudslinging. Political commentators, however, cannot be. Political commentators should be engaged in sustained and serious debate about ideas and policies. In such a context personal attacks on opponents serve not to beat those opponents but to cut off the debate.
Which of the following most accurately states the main point of the argument?
(A) Personal attacks on opponents serve a useful purpose for politicians.
(B) Political commentators should not resort to personal attacks on their opponents.
(C) Editorialists are right to criticize politicians who resort to personal attacks on their opponents.
(D) The purpose of serious debate about ideas and policies is to counteract the effect of personal attacks by politicians.
(E) Voters should be concerned about the personal attacks politicians make on each other.
IMHO BIf we simplify the argument>>>>>> When X do Z..it's OK, HOWEVER, Y should not do Z.So, Conclusion : Y should not do Z. >>>>> Political commentators cannot be excused for mudslinging.IMO, D is completely misleading...!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
CR Forum Moderator
Joined: 02 Oct 2009
Posts: 470
Location: Bangalore,India
WE 1: 4yrs in IT Industry
Followers: 16
Kudos [?]:
66
[0], given: 268
|
Re: politicians personal attacks [#permalink]
13 May 2010, 18:56
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 16 Feb 2010
Posts: 178
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
4
[0], given: 10
|
Re: politicians personal attacks [#permalink]
15 May 2010, 05:11
yup B must be the answer
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 25 Aug 2007
Posts: 959
WE 1: 3.5 yrs IT
WE 2: 2.5 yrs Retail chain
Followers: 38
Kudos [?]:
557
[0], given: 40
|
Re: politicians personal attacks [#permalink]
15 May 2010, 07:11
Good question. It desrves to be in LSAT category. RaviChandra wrote: When politicians resort to personal attacks, many editorialists criticize these attacks but most voters pay them scant attention. Everyone knows such attacks will end after election day, and politicians can be excused for mudslinging. Political commentators, however, cannot be. Political commentators should be engaged in sustained and serious debate about ideas and policies. In such a context personal attacks on opponents serve not to beat those opponents but to cut off the debate.
Which of the following most accurately states the main point of the argument?
(A) Personal attacks on opponents serve a useful purpose for politicians.
(B) Political commentators should not resort to personal attacks on their opponents.
(C) Editorialists are right to criticize politicians who resort to personal attacks on their opponents.
(D) The purpose of serious debate about ideas and policies is to counteract the effect of personal attacks by politicians.
(E) Voters should be concerned about the personal attacks politicians make on each other.
_________________
Want to improve your CR: cr-methods-an-approach-to-find-the-best-answers-93146.html
Tricky Quant problems: 50-tricky-questions-92834.html
Important Grammer Fundamentals: key-fundamentals-of-grammer-our-crucial-learnings-on-sc-93659.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 29 Dec 2010
Posts: 8
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 0
|
Re: politicians personal attacks [#permalink]
02 Jan 2011, 15:04
nverma's answer is amazing. the OA is B.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Verbal GMAT Forum Moderator
Joined: 31 Jan 2010
Posts: 500
WE 1: 4 years Tech
Followers: 7
Kudos [?]:
67
[0], given: 149
|
Re: politicians personal attacks [#permalink]
04 Jan 2011, 05:53
Nice question.Can u pls post a few more
_________________
My Post Invites Discussions not answers
Try to give back something to the Forum.I want your explanations, right now !
Please let me know your opinion about the Chandigarh Gmat Centrehttp://gmatclub.com/forum/gmat-experience-at-chandigarh-india-centre-111830.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 07 Jul 2010
Posts: 103
Location: Hanoi, Vietnam
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
5
[0], given: 18
|
Re: politicians personal attacks [#permalink]
25 Jan 2011, 09:25
I go for B
_________________
Hung M.Tran
Faculty of Banking and Finance,
National Economics University of Vietnam
Follow me on Twitter : http://twitter.com/AndyTranHung
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 27 Jul 2010
Posts: 199
Location: Prague
Schools: University of Economics Prague
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
10
[0], given: 15
|
Re: politicians personal attacks [#permalink]
25 Jan 2011, 14:01
woaw, B you say? bud D was better at the first glance
_________________
You want somethin', go get it. Period!
|
|
|
|
|
|
SVP
Joined: 16 Nov 2010
Posts: 1721
Location: United States (IN)
Concentration: Strategy, Technology
Followers: 26
Kudos [?]:
228
[0], given: 34
|
Re: politicians personal attacks [#permalink]
23 Mar 2011, 22:19
The answer is B.
_________________
Formula of Life -> Achievement/Potential = k * Happiness (where k is a constant)
Find out what's new at GMAT Club - latest features and updates
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 06 Sep 2010
Posts: 121
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
2
[0], given: 6
|
Re: politicians personal attacks [#permalink]
25 Mar 2011, 19:06
Can anyone explain why B and not D???
Thanks!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ross Thread Master
Joined: 17 Mar 2011
Posts: 455
Location: United States (DC)
Concentration: General Management, Technology
GMAT 1: 760 Q49 V45
GPA: 3.37
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
Followers: 10
Kudos [?]:
137
[0], given: 5
|
Re: politicians personal attacks [#permalink]
26 Mar 2011, 04:51
Quote: (D) The purpose of serious debate about ideas and policies is to counteract the effect of personal attacks by politicians. The relevant text from the argument is: "Political commentators should be engaged in sustained and serious debate about ideas and policies. In such a context personal attacks on opponents serve not to beat those opponents but to cut off the debate." If you notice, the first sentence doesn't indicate anything about the PURPOSE of serious debate. Sentence two indicates a causal relationship between personal attacks (instead of serious debate) and cutting off the debate. "Personal Attacks by commentators CAUSES debate to be cut off". This is a cause/effect statement, but does not touch on purpose.
|
|
|
|
|
|
SVP
Status: 2000 posts! I don't know whether I should feel great or sad about it! LOL
Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 1756
Location: Peru
Schools: Harvard, Stanford, Wharton, MIT & HKS (Government)
WE 1: Economic research
WE 2: Banking
WE 3: Government: Foreign Trade and SMEs
Followers: 50
Kudos [?]:
145
[0], given: 108
|
Re: politicians personal attacks [#permalink]
26 Mar 2011, 17:04
+1 B Usually, the main point is the conclusion of the argument but rephrased.
_________________
"Life’s battle doesn’t always go to stronger or faster men; but sooner or later the man who wins is the one who thinks he can."
My Integrated Reasoning Logbook / Diary: my-ir-logbook-diary-133264.html
Find out what's new at GMAT Club - latest features and updates
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: politicians personal attacks
[#permalink]
26 Mar 2011, 17:04
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Similar topics |
Author |
Replies |
Last post |
|
Similar
Topics:
|
 |
|
|
Many politicians, business leaders, and scholars discount
|
withme |
4 |
14 Oct 2006, 22:44 |
|
|
|
|
Many politicians, business leaders, and scholars discount
|
ttanvir |
2 |
14 Dec 2006, 17:34 |
|
|
|
|
When a study of aspirin s ability to prevent heart attacks
|
vaivish1723 |
4 |
01 Jul 2009, 02:15 |
|
|
|
|
Many politicians, business leaders, and scholars discount
|
eybrj2 |
4 |
19 May 2012, 18:59 |
|
|
2
|
 |
Many politicians, business leaders, and scholars discount
|
venmic |
5 |
16 Aug 2012, 09:52 |
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
metallicafan, rajeevrks27, souvik101990, PTK, MacFauz, noboru, kissthegmat, carcass, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, doe007, Vercules, Legendaddy, tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Marcab, Narenn
|
close
