A political candidate committed to the principal tenets of a

Question

A political candidate committed to the principal tenets of a political party may not always explain the implications of his or her party commitment to the voters in full detail. Adele Richardson, for example, is a minor-party candidate in contention for a seat on the school board. She is not likely to inform conservative voters in her district that the national leadership of her party has recently recommended that school curricula be more closely monitored by agencies of the federal government.

Which of the following is not assumed or implied by the passage above?

Each of the following is assumed in the argument above EXCEPT:

(A) A political candidate is likely to be more interested in winning an election than in proselytizing the electorate.

(B) The candidate of any party is likely to support the policy decisions made by the national leadership.

(C) All candidates for such community positions as membership on the school board must have commitments to national parties.

(D) Conservatives in Adele Richardson's district do not support federal intervention in decisions made by community school officials.

(E) Voters in Adele Richardson's district are not fully aware of the policy statements made by the national leadership of her party.

nverma · Answer

Bunuel · Answer

KAPLAN OFFICIAL EXPLANATION:

Four assumptions means we must be dealing with a pretty shaky, or at least, incomplete, argument. The author states a general point in the first sentence: A candidate who has faith in the beliefs of a party may not find it in her interest to explain those beliefs to voters. Enter Ms. Richardson, school board hopeful. Her party would like to see tight government regulation of school curricula, but in accordance with the claim in the first sentence, the author thinks that she's not likely to explain this to conservative voters. Since there are four assumptions here, our best bet is to go right to the choices, looking for the odd-man-out.

(A) If (A) is not true, then the argument is weakened, which shows that (A) must be assumed. If a candidate is interested in proselytizing the electorate rather than winning an election, then, contrary to the author's assertion, the candidate would have no reason to conceal her opinions from voters likely to disagree with her.

(B) must be assumed because if a candidate is not likely to support the national leadership's policy decisions, then the author's assertion about Richardson makes no sense.

(C) is the only nonassumption here: The argument doesn't depend on candidates for community positions having commitments to national parties. The author addresses only those candidates who are committed to a political party's central tenets; he says nothing about what's required to run for community positions. Adele Richardson happens to be committed to a national party, but this needn't be true of all candidates for such positions. (C) is correct.

(D) is a fairly obvious assumption: Why would Richardson conceal her party's recommendation from conservatives if conservatives supported it? Instead, she'd be more likely to parade the party recommendation in order to garner conservative votes.

(E) is also assumed: The only way Richardson can conceal her party's recommendation from voters is if they're not fully aware of it already.

Helium · Answer

You need to remember that in this variation on the standard assumption question, four out of the five are necessary assumptions—meaning that as you examine each choice, there's an 80% chance that it's an assumption, and hence a wrong answer. (C) turns out to be right because the first sentence can be understood as, "IF a candidate is committed to a party, THEN s/he may not spell out its implications." That's a hypothetical; candidates not affiliated to a party are outside the scope. Contrary to (C), then, the author does leave the door open to candidates who aren't party followers.

(A) is the reason Richardson is "unlikely" to spill the beans on the curricula issue. (B) asserts what the author assumes about Richardson, that being a party loyalist means that one toes the party line. (D) is assumed because if the constituents were in favor of federal school intervention, why would Richardson be so unwilling or unlikely to broadcast her own support? And (E) is an assumption, because if the constituents knew about the party's positions there'd be no need for Richardson to keep mum about them.

soapbolt · Answer

Question Stem is asking us what can be inferred or what can be concluded from the given passage.

A) A political candidate is likely to be more interested in winning an election than in proselytizing the electorate. Irrelevant  
B) The candidate of any party is likely to support the policy decisions made by the national leadership. Irrelevant  Since it doesn't not matter what see likely to think
C) All candidates for such community positions as membership on the school board must have commitments to national parties.  Correct  Can be Inferred as per the given passage
D) Conservatives in Adele Richardson's district do not support federal intervention in decisions made by community school officials.  Irrelevant  
E) Voters in Adele Richardson's district are not fully aware of the policy statements made by the national leadership of her party Irrelevant

GptShubham · Answer

A political candidate committed to the principal tenets of a political party may not always explain the implications of his or her party commitment to the voters in full detail. Adele Richardson, for example, is a minor-party candidate in contention for a seat on the school board. She is not likely to inform conservative voters in her district that the national leadership of her party has recently recommended that school curricula be more closely monitored by agencies of the federal government.

Which of the following is not assumed or implied by the passage above?

Which of the following is not assumed or implied by the passage above?

We need to identify, which option is not an assumption or implication that can be derived from the above argument. The purpose is to select the best possible choice.

A) A political candidate is likely to be more interested in winning an election than in proselytizing the electorate. >>  From the first line and example mentioned it can be assumed that the Candidate is more interested in winning.     >> Incorrect  
B) The candidate of any party is likely to support the policy decisions made by the national leadership. >>  Since the candidate is more likely not to inform the voters about the decision from the leaders. It can be implied that directly or indirectly candidate is supporting the decision.    >> Incorrect  
C) All candidates for such community positions as membership on the school board must have commitments to national parties. >>  There is no mention about other candidates, they can be from a political party or they can independent.     >> Correct  
D) Conservatives in Adele Richardson's district do not support federal intervention in decisions made by community school officials. >>  Since the candidate is not likely to disclose the decision from the party leaders to the conservative voters there is quite a possibility that they are against it.     >> Incorrect  
E) Voters in Adele Richardson's district are not fully aware of the policy statements made by the national leadership of her party >>  If the voters would have been already aware of the decision, then the candidate would not have any issue with informing the voters about the same.    >> Incorrect.

AndrewN · Answer

Here is my take on this tricky question:

Notice that this assumption question is asking us what is  not  assumed or implied by the passage, not what can be assumed, a sort of reversal of expectations. If anything, the question stem illustrates  the importance of reading and understanding the question before jumping into the answer choices . With that out of the way, we need to find the outlier, something that does not tie into the passage directly or that veers off in a direction not supported by the passage. Since this could include any of a number of distractions, I would now happily jump in and look to find just one.

Analysis: This answer takes an odd turn once it gets into  proselytizing . I would expect an official question to rely less on upper-level vocabulary and simply state the meaning of the word, something along the lines of  more interested in winning an election than in converting the electorate to his or her views.  That gripe aside, though, the suggestion is that the candidate wants to win more than anything else. To evaluate whether this statement is, in fact, an assumption or implication, we need to consider the  why  behind the actions. That is, why might a political candidate withhold information from the voters? Presumably, to increase the probability of getting voted into office. If you were unsure about the meaning of  proselytizing , then you could definitely keep this choice in the running. As a rule of thumb,  never eliminate something because you do not understand it . Look to reduce the answer pool first and come back if nothing else stands out. For now, then, let us label this one as a  yellow-light  response. Proceed with caution.

Analysis: Notice the frame of the candidate in question, namely that the candidate is  committed to the principal tenets of a political party . If that is not game over for this answer choice, then I cannot see what more we would want. Moreover, the answer uses vague, non-committal language in  is likely to . It does not boldly state that a candidate  must  or, better yet,  must always  support the decisions of the national leadership, so that makes it harder to argue against. This choice is a logical assumption, based on what the passage tells us.  Red light.

Analysis: Speaking of absolute or overreaching language, the  all  of this answer choice makes it a dubious statement, and the  must have  is similarly problematic. Focusing on the former part, remember, the only candidate we are considering in the passage is one  committed to the principal tenets of a political party . Does that necessarily mean that  all  candidates are also committed in this manner? Not at all. Furthermore, are we to assume that any candidate for a local (i.e. community) position has to have ties to a national party? The thought had not even entered my mind until the word  national  appeared in the passage toward the end. Before that, all we had to lean on was  party commitment  in the first line. Adele Richardson is only being held up as an example of a party-committed candidate, one who happens to have ties within the party that run all the way up to the national level. Since neither all candidates nor national party commitments are required assumptions, this is our answer to the question being asked.  Green light.

Analysis: Since Adele Richardson is being used to exemplify a point made earlier in the passage, we need to put a finger on what that point is. The first sentence tells us. With a little interposition:  Adele Richardson may not always explain the implications of her party commitment to the voters in full detail.  Okay, so what is she not disclosing? The end of the passage tells us:  the national leadership of her party has recently recommended that school curricula be more closely monitored by agencies of the federal government.  Sounds a lot like the  federal intervention  mentioned in the response. Finally, from whom is Adele Richardson keeping this information? If you look at the same closing sentence to the passage, you find the answer right at the beginning:  conservative voters in her district . Thus, we can assume that these conservative voters would oppose federal intervention in the matter at hand, and that is enough to see off this answer.  Red light.

Analysis: You can assume that voters are somewhat ignorant of such policy statements, at least conservative voters, given the previous analysis. Keep in mind, too, that the topic sentence informs us that  a political candidate... may not always explain the implications of his or her party commitment to the voters in full detail . If some detail about national leadership is left out deliberately by a candidate when presenting views to voters, then it is safe to assume that the electorate is  not fully aware  of all the information.  Red light.

If, at this point, you were still on the fence between (A) and (C), it would be a good idea to  look for weaknesses  in any part of either choice. For reasons explained above, choice (A) does follow from the information presented in the passage, leaving choice (C) as the answer.

I hope that helps clarify any lingering concerns on this one. Good luck with your studies.

- Andrew

lostin · Answer

IMHO - above explanation is in-correct. How can 4 assumption implied from the stem be irrelevant ?

AndrewN · Answer

Hello,  lostin . I think the original poster may have misread the question stem, since it is asking us what can  not  be inferred/concluded from the given passage. It is then not an issue of relevance, but of implication or assumption instead. Perhaps that user just saw the answer and wrote to justify it, despite not grasping exactly what it was getting at. I am not sure. At least it stands as a testament to how easy it can be to get twisted up in all the verbiage of the GMAT™.

- Andrew

VerbalBot · 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.

A political candidate committed to the principal tenets of a

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

A political candidate committed to the principal tenets of a

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards