GMAT Question of the Day: Daily via email | Daily via Instagram New to GMAT Club? Watch this Video

It is currently 11 Jul 2020, 07:33

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.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Activist: Any member of the city council ought either to vote against

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Find Similar Topics 
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
D
Status: PhD-trained. Education, Research, Teaching, Training, Consulting and Advisory Services
Joined: 23 Apr 2019
Posts: 439
Activist: Any member of the city council ought either to vote against  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 12 Nov 2019, 08:48
4
2
14
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  95% (hard)

Question Stats:

37% (02:02) correct 63% (02:01) wrong based on 503 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

Activist: Any member of the city council ought either to vote against the proposal or to abstain. But if all the members abstain, the matter will be decided by the city’s voters. So at least one member of the city council should vote against the proposal.

The conclusion of the activist’s argument follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?

(A) If all the members of the city council abstain in the vote on the proposal, the city’s voters will definitely decide in favor of the proposal.

(B) The proposal should not be decided by the city’s voters.

(C) No members of the city council will vote in favor of the proposal.

(D) If not every member of the city council abstains in the vote on the proposal, the matter will not be decided by the city’s voters.

(E) If one member of the city council ought to vote against the proposal, the other members should abstain in the vote on the proposal.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
P
Joined: 03 Mar 2017
Posts: 400
Reviews Badge CAT Tests
Re: Activist: Any member of the city council ought either to vote against  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 13 Nov 2019, 09:13
1
3
IMO D.

If all the members abstain, the matter will be decided by the city’s voters.

Conclusion :--So at least one member of the city council should vote against the proposal.

We are assuming that :->

If not every member of the city council abstains in the vote on the proposal, the matter will not be decided by the city’s voters.
_________________
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All the Gods, All the Heavens, and All the Hells lie within you.
Manager
Manager
User avatar
P
Joined: 18 Jan 2018
Posts: 180
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, International Business
Schools: CBS '22, ISB, Ivey '22
GPA: 3.27
WE: Operations (Other)
CAT Tests
Re: Activist: Any member of the city council ought either to vote against  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 Nov 2019, 03:21
Question stem states: The conclusion of the activist’s argument follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?

option B is logically correct as per the passage but I don't think assumption is required. It is clear that the activist does not want voters to decide on the proposal.

Can anyone explain why D is wrong?
_________________
Believe!!
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 22 Sep 2018
Posts: 43
Location: Morocco
Premium Member
Re: Activist: Any member of the city council ought either to vote against  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Nov 2019, 04:58
ARIEN3228 wrote:
Question stem states: The conclusion of the activist’s argument follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?

option B is logically correct as per the passage but I don't think assumption is required. It is clear that the activist does not want voters to decide on the proposal.

Can anyone explain why D is wrong?


(D) If not every member of the city council abstains in the vote on the proposal, the matter will not be decided by the city’s voters.

I originally crossed D because it's saying that if you asked every member of the city to not abstain (vote against) then the city's voters will not have the right to decide, but the stem say that at least one member of the city council should vote against the proposal so one vote from the member of the city is sufficient to not let the the city's voters decide.

By POE, B is correct, but I agree that B is not an assumption
Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 07 Jan 2012
Posts: 59
Location: Canada
Concentration: International Business, Entrepreneurship
GMAT Date: 04-30-2012
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Re: Activist: Any member of the city council ought either to vote against  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 27 Nov 2019, 22:07
1
How can B be an assumption - it sounds more like a conclusion.
Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 27 Mar 2017
Posts: 174
Re: Activist: Any member of the city council ought either to vote against  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 25 Dec 2019, 20:09
B is more intent than assumption. Do we have correct OA here ? Isn't Not Every = At Least 1 ? Option D seems more assumption-like.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
P
Joined: 03 Mar 2017
Posts: 400
Reviews Badge CAT Tests
Re: Activist: Any member of the city council ought either to vote against  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 28 Jun 2020, 17:28
GMATNinja generis VeritasKarishma MentorTutoring AjiteshArun

Why is B correct here??
_________________
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All the Gods, All the Heavens, and All the Hells lie within you.
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 27 Jun 2020
Posts: 3
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Leadership
GPA: 3.4
Premium Member CAT Tests
Activist: Any member of the city council ought either to vote against  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 28 Jun 2020, 19:49
Premise : Council members can vote in favor or against
Counter Premise : If they don't, then it goes to City people who i believe will reject
Conclusion : so the author wants at least one to vote

Author's assumption : City people will reject, should not be allowed to vote
Author does not want City people to vote as according to hmim they will reject, so assumption will follow logically if city people are not allowed to vote.

Hence B
CEO
CEO
User avatar
V
Joined: 15 Jul 2015
Posts: 3323
Location: India
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Re: Activist: Any member of the city council ought either to vote against  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 29 Jun 2020, 04:00
2
warrior1991 wrote:
Hi warrior1991,

Let's take a (somewhat) similar situation, a quiz competition:
1. Any member of our team should answer, or not answer, the question posed to our team.
2. If every member of our team fails to answer the question posed to our team, the question passes to the next team.
4. Therefore, at least one member of our team should answer the question posed to our team. ← This is the conclusion.

The question asks us for a statement (3), an assumption that would help us plug the gap between (1) & (2) and (4).

1. Any member of our team should answer, or not answer, the question posed to our team.
2. If every member of our team fails to answer the question posed to our team, the question passes to the next team.
3. We should not allow the question posed to our team to pass to the next team.
4. Therefore, at least one member of our team should answer the question posed to our team.

Now the conclusion looks better. Why should we avoid a situation where no one on our team answers the question? To keep it from being passed to the next team. That's why at least one team member should answer the question.
_________________
Tutor
User avatar
V
Joined: 16 May 2019
Posts: 894
Re: Activist: Any member of the city council ought either to vote against  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 29 Jun 2020, 08:04
1
warrior1991 wrote:

I agree with what AjiteshArun has written above, and I would not have thought to express the justification of (B) in such a way. As for (D), it presents, in mathematical or formal logic terms, the inverse of the given conditional statement. A bit more on that first:

Conditional Statement: If A, then B.
Inverse: If not A, then not B.
Converse: If B, then A.
Contrapositive: If not B, then not A.

These relationships may be useful to know for such questions, even if they are not strictly necessary to keep in mind for GMAT™ CR questions. In the question at hand, our conditional statement is as follows:

If all the members abstain, the matter will be decided by the city’s voters.

Choice (D) negates this, creating a could-be-true situation, rather than a must-be-true assumption that we are seeking:

If not every member of the city council abstains in the vote on the proposal, the matter will not be decided by the city’s voters.

Such a consideration goes beyond the scope of the passage. For all we know, one member of the council could vote for the proposal and another against, with the rest abstaining, and with a deadlock resulting from the council voting phase, the matter could still be decided by the voters of the city. We can only speculate. Looking at (B) again, given the constant presence of "proposal language," as I will call it—ought to, should—we can deduce that, to the activist, it is only reasonable to assume that the proposal should not be decided by the city's voters.

I hope that helps.

- Andrew
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
User avatar
V
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 10664
Location: Pune, India
Re: Activist: Any member of the city council ought either to vote against  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 29 Jun 2020, 22:22
1
Hovkial wrote:
Activist: Any member of the city council ought either to vote against the proposal or to abstain. But if all the members abstain, the matter will be decided by the city’s voters. So at least one member of the city council should vote against the proposal.

The conclusion of the activist’s argument follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?

(A) If all the members of the city council abstain in the vote on the proposal, the city’s voters will definitely decide in favor of the proposal.

(B) The proposal should not be decided by the city’s voters.

(C) No members of the city council will vote in favor of the proposal.

(D) If not every member of the city council abstains in the vote on the proposal, the matter will not be decided by the city’s voters.

(E) If one member of the city council ought to vote against the proposal, the other members should abstain in the vote on the proposal.


First note that it is an LSAT question. It asks for "conclusion of the activist’s argument follows logically if which one of the following is assumed"

We are not looking for an assumption as defined in GMAT. We are looking for a "sufficient premise", not a "necessary premise".

Activist:
- Any member of the city council ought either to vote against the proposal or to abstain.
- But if all the members abstain, the matter will be decided by the city’s voters.

Conclusion: So at least one member of the city council should vote against the proposal.

When will the conclusion follow? When we say "but the city's voters should not decide the matter". So at least one member of city council should vote against.

- Any member of the city council ought either to vote against the proposal or to abstain.
- But if all the members abstain, the matter will be decided by the city’s voters.
- The proposal should not be decided by the city’s voters.
Conclusion: So at least one member of the city council should vote against the proposal.

Makes complete sense, right? No gaps in logic.

(D) If not every member of the city council abstains in the vote on the proposal, the matter will not be decided by the city’s voters.
This means if even one member votes, the matter will not be decided by the city's voters.
Note that this is the flip side of our second premise above. If all members abstain, city voters will decide. If even one member votes, city voters will not decide. What is still missing is that "city voters should not be allowed to decide" to reach our conclusion "at least one member must vote". Hence this is not the answer.

Answer (B)
_________________
Karishma
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor

Learn more about how Veritas Prep can help you achieve a great GMAT score by checking out their GMAT Prep Options >
Manager
Manager
User avatar
G
Joined: 14 Aug 2019
Posts: 244
Location: India
Concentration: Marketing, Finance
Re: Activist: Any member of the city council ought either to vote against  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 Jun 2020, 00:37
What if some city council member votes in favor then conclusion will be distorted.( negate)
So is it not necessary that no council member vote against in favor. why can not this be an assumption?

Is C wrong because it doesn't mention about vote against or abstain on which the conclusion directly depends.
C is out of scope?

Please suggest. VeritasKarishma MentorTutoring AjiteshArun
Tutor
User avatar
V
Joined: 16 May 2019
Posts: 894
Re: Activist: Any member of the city council ought either to vote against  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 Jun 2020, 04:15
2
itsSKR wrote:
What if some city council member votes in favor then conclusion will be distorted.( negate)
So is it not necessary that no council member vote against in favor. why can not this be an assumption?

Is C wrong because it doesn't mention about vote against or abstain on which the conclusion directly depends.
C is out of scope?

Please suggest. VeritasKarishma MentorTutoring AjiteshArun

Yes, choice (C) is out of scope. As VeritasKarishma mentioned above, the question stem is asking us to put a finger on an assumption that allows the argument to "follow logically." There seems to be a disconnect if we attempt to justify (C) as a necessary assumption that leads to the argument. Try it out. In the vein of what AjiteshArun has done above, where would you place the sentence to create such a logical progression of ideas, given that the first and last lines are fixed? (The first line is fixed because it introduces the idea of voting on the proposal; the last line is fixed because it is the argument itself.)

Version 1:
1) Activist: Any member of the city council ought either to vote against the proposal or to abstain.
2) No members of the city council will vote in favor of the proposal.
3) But if all the members abstain, the matter will be decided by the city’s voters.
4) So at least one member of the city council should vote against the proposal.

The activist is giving a recommendation, not assessing how council members will actually vote. The second sentence seems out of place.

Version 2:
1) Activist: Any member of the city council ought either to vote against the proposal or to abstain.
2) But if all the members abstain, the matter will be decided by the city’s voters.
3) No members of the city council will vote in favor of the proposal.
4) So at least one member of the city council should vote against the proposal.

Again, the proposed assumption breaks up the linear logic that leads to the argument. Notice that what is now sentence 2 operates within a conditional (if-[then]) statement, so it is presenting a hypothetical scenario. Sentence 3, on the other hand, is definitive, not to mention that reading 3) and 4) back to back leaves me scratching my head. (How does the argument necessarily follow from the previous sentence? The ideas seem to be going in different directions, and 3) only seems to be interrupting.)

I hope that helps. If not, you seem to have three Experts willing to chime in on this one.

- Andrew
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
P
Joined: 03 Mar 2017
Posts: 400
Reviews Badge CAT Tests
Re: Activist: Any member of the city council ought either to vote against  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 Jun 2020, 21:51
AjiteshArun wrote:
warrior1991 wrote:
Hi warrior1991,

Let's take a (somewhat) similar situation, a quiz competition:
1. Any member of our team should answer, or not answer, the question posed to our team.
2. If every member of our team fails to answer the question posed to our team, the question passes to the next team.
4. Therefore, at least one member of our team should answer the question posed to our team. ← This is the conclusion.

The question asks us for a statement (3), an assumption that would help us plug the gap between (1) & (2) and (4).

1. Any member of our team should answer, or not answer, the question posed to our team.
2. If every member of our team fails to answer the question posed to our team, the question passes to the next team.
3. We should not allow the question posed to our team to pass to the next team.
4. Therefore, at least one member of our team should answer the question posed to our team.

Now the conclusion looks better. Why should we avoid a situation where no one on our team answers the question? To keep it from being passed to the next team. That's why at least one team member should answer the question.



Thanks for the explanation.

So do you mean to say that option B is bridging the gap firmly than is option D??
_________________
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All the Gods, All the Heavens, and All the Hells lie within you.
CEO
CEO
User avatar
V
Joined: 15 Jul 2015
Posts: 3323
Location: India
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Activist: Any member of the city council ought either to vote against  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 Jun 2020, 22:55
1
warrior1991 wrote:
Thanks for the explanation.

So do you mean to say that option B is bridging the gap firmly than is option D??
Hi warrior1991,

Let's take another look at the question stem:
The conclusion of the activist’s argument follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?

This question is asking us to provide an assumption that would plug the logical gap between the support and the conclusion. The basic situation is a little bit like "if we do X, Y won't happen. So we should do X". But why? Why should we stop Y from happening?

In the quiz example, this is the argument that D would lead to:
1. Any member of our team should answer, or not answer, the question posed to our team.
2. If every member of our team fails to answer the question posed to our team, the question passes to the next team.
3. If not every member of team abstains, the question will not pass to the next team.
4. Therefore, at least one member of our team should answer the question posed to our team.

But this leaves us no closer to plugging that gap we identified. Why exactly should at least one person answer the question? Why is that so important? For example, what if there are negative points for answering incorrectly, and answering a question incorrectly is worse than letting the next team take a shot at the question? The situation in the question is the same. We can do something to stop voters from deciding the issue. But that alone does not tell us why we should do that something. The correct option tells us that voters should not be allowed to decide on the proposal, and that gives us a reason to take the action advocated by the conclusion.

I hope the quiz example helped, but I'll drop it so that we can focus on the original question, more directly addressed by this post and this post.
_________________
GMAT Club Bot
Activist: Any member of the city council ought either to vote against   [#permalink] 30 Jun 2020, 22:55

Activist: Any member of the city council ought either to vote against

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  





cron

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne