Political analyst: A party that temporarily positions itself in the ne

Question

Political analyst: A party that temporarily positions itself in the negligible crack between the American right and left will do little to expand the public debate. What America needs is a permanent third party.  Some claim that America’s success stems from the two party system.  These people say that a third party would make the passage of legislation and thus governance impossible. Furthermore, they point to the current sluggish pace of government as proof that the country cannot bear the burden of a third party.  Yet, most European countries have multi-party systems and few complain about any inability to govern there

Which of the following best describes the functions of the two sections in boldface in the argument above?

A. The first is the main point of the argument; the second is a premise that supports that point.

B. The first opposes the premises of the argument; the second is the claim that the argument supports.

C. The first supports the main position held by opponents of the main point; the second is a premise that argues against that position.

D. The first is the primary claim made by opponents of the main point of the argument; the second is evidence proposed in opposition to the first.

E. The first is a claim made by opponents of the main point of the argument; the second is the claim that the first opposes.

thevenus · Accepted Answer

d) The first is the primary claim made by opponents of the main point of the argument; the
second is evidence proposed in opposition to the first.

Some claim that America’s success stems from the two party
system.

is the  primary claim  because it is further explained ...     furthermore     ,   they point to the current sluggish pace of government  
as proof that the country cannot bear the burden of a third party.

otherwise we would have opted for (E) which says that the 1st boldface is just a claim and not the primary claim.

Yet, most European
countries have multi-party systems and few complain about any inability to govern
there.

we can figure out     "yet"     which is throwing contrast in  opposition  of the primary claim mentioned above in the boldface by quoting example of European countries.

(D) Wins.

Bunuel · Answer

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

This argument presents a claim that America needs a permanent third party. This claim is the argument's conclusion, in fact. The author then cites the view held by critics of this claim and notes their subordinate assertions that a third party would slow the legislative process and impede governance. Finally, the author cites European countries to contradict the opponents’ claim and their evidence.

(A) This choice is incorrect because the first boldface is not the main point of the argument. It is the conclusion of the argument’s opponents. Furthermore, the second boldface is a premise that supports the actual conclusion, not the claim made by the opponents.

(B) This choice is incorrect because the first boldface does not oppose the premises of the argument; it opposes the conclusion. Furthermore, the second boldface is a premise that supports the conclusion; it is not the conclusion.

(C) This choice is incorrect because the first boldface is the actual position held by the opponents, not a premise for their position. This choice does correctly state that the second boldface is a premise that argues against the position held by the opponents.

(D) CORRECT.  The first is the claim of the argument’s opponents, and the second is evidence that contradicts the opponents’ claim.

(E) This choice is incorrect because the second is not the claim that the opponents are opposing by asserting the first boldface. They assert the first boldface to oppose the conclusion of the argument.

jlgdr · Answer

Very good question here, let's try to analize it quickly. CPX works pretty good on this one. We actually have a nice CP, P combo. CP= Counterpremise P=Premise So the first bold actually supports an opposing view and the second bold face in fact support the main conclusion of the argument Let's take a peep at the answer choices I think C and D are pretty close here. But note that C says that the bold face is a premise, while D says that it is the counterconclusion. Now, the second part is very similar in both as well. So it is going to be a delicate choice. Let's proceed, shall we? So what is the first bold actually? From my understanding, it is in fact a counterpremise as a stated before. Some claim that America’s success stems from the two party system. (Counterpremise) These people say that a third party would make the passage of legislation and thus governance impossible (Counterconclusion) So for me the answer should be C, but I'm probably making a mistake in my reasoning. Experts, will you shed some light on this one? Thanks in advance Cheers J

jlgdr · Answer

It is the primary claim because it is explained then; Furthermore…This second part is actually the premise of the passage. Hence option D is better than option C and is in fact the correct answer choice. Bite that C is wrong because the premise, (second boldface) does NOT argue against anything, it is simply a new statement that undermined the premise of the opponents. Hence D stands

Answer: D

Answer: D

prasi55 · Answer

Dear jlgdr, kinghyts, and shagalo,

They mean opposition to the first "section in bold face".

The political analyst suggests that America needs a third party. This is the main point of the analyst's argument.

The analyst first points out an "opposing claim" made by some people. This is the first bold face section. The analyst then points out an additional claim made by these people.

The analyst responds to these claims by providing "facts" (evidence) that counter the first claim (only the governance one, not the additional claim of the sluggish pace of government and the burden of a third party).

Put all these elements together, and you get D. D clearly explains the functions of the two bold face portions.

What about B and E?

B says that the first opposes the premises of the argument. What are the premises? Multi-party systems seem to be doing rather well -- a fact. The first bold face doesn't say that multi-part systems are NOT doing well; it merely upholds a different claim about the two-party system. It is perfectly acceptable for both two-party and multi-party systems to do well; one doesn't exclude or preclude the other. So the first bold face does not oppose the premises of the argument. B also says that the second is a claim that the argument supports. One can verify whether most countries have multi-party systems and whether few/many people complain about the governance. So the second bold face contains two verifiable statements, i.e. fact/evidence, not a claim.

The first part of E is correct; the first bold face portion is indeed a claim made by opponents of the main point of the argument. But the second is not a claim, as discussed above. Also, the first does not oppose the fact/evidence in the second part, as discussed above. (Another subtle point is that, if the first opposed the second, it should have come before, not after, the second, in the sequence of events.)

Evidence can effectively oppose a claim; it's absurd to imply that a claim can oppose fact.

--Prasad

aniteshgmat1101 · Answer

Answer should be D.
Author`s main point: "What America needs is a permanent third party."
Then the argument shift to explain what the opponents of this view are claiming, which is BF-1 followed by the reasoning given by opponents.
Again shift happens in the argument with "Yet", and author bolsters his main point with a premise (BF-2).

A. The first is the main point of the argument ( WRONG ); the second is a premise that supports that point.

B. The first opposes the premises of the argument ( WRONG ) ; the second is the claim that the argument supports (WRONG).

C. The first supports the main position held by opponents of the main point ( WRONG - First is the claim not support to the claim); the second is a premise that argues against that position.

D. The first is the primary claim made by opponents of the main point of the argument ( CORRECT ); the second is evidence proposed in opposition to the first ( CORRECT ).

E. The first is a claim made by opponents of the main point of the argument; the second is the claim that the first opposes ( WRONG )

souvik101990 · Answer

A great post that covers this question.

LakerFan24 · Answer

Political analyst: A party that temporarily positions itself in the negligible crack between the American right and left will do little to expand the public debate. What America needs is a permanent third party. Some claim that America’s success stems from the two party system. These people say that a third party would make the passage of legislation and thus governance impossible. Furthermore, they point to the current sluggish pace of government as proof that the country cannot bear the burden of a third party. Yet, most European countries have multi-party systems and few complain about any inability to govern there.

Which of the following best describes the functions of the two sections in boldface in the argument above?

* ID Conclusion: What America needs is a permanent third party
> BF1: does not agree that America needs 3rd party (due to America's success coming from 2-party system)
> BF2: sounds like evidence

A) The first is the main point of the argument; the second is a premise that supports that point.
- BF1 is NOT the main point of the argument. also, BF2 does NOT support the same point that BF1 makes

b) The first opposes the premises of the argument; the second is the claim that the argument supports.
- BF1 does not oppose the premise of the argument...it is opposite to the conclusion of the argument. BF2 is NOT a claim, it is more like evidence.

c) The first supports the main position held by opponents of the main point; the second is a premise that argues against that position.
- BF2 does not necessarily argue AGAINST the main point.

d) The first is the primary claim made by opponents of the main point of the argument; the second is evidence proposed in opposition to the first.
- Correct as is

e) The first is a claim made by opponents of the main point of the argument; the second is the claim that the first opposes.
- BF2 is NOT a claim, it is more like evidence

Kudos please if you find this helpful

manan01 · Answer

@KarishmaB @AjiteshArun, can you explain this please, what tempted me to select C, over D was the usage of word 'primary', I'm not sure how can we confidently say that it is the primary claim made by the opponents.

AbhishekP220108 · Answer

Hi  manan01  let me try to help

Political analyst: A party that temporarily positions itself in the negligible crack between the American right and left will do little to expand the public debate. What America needs is a permanent third party.  Some claim that America’s success stems from the two party system . These people say that a third party would make the passage of legislation and thus governance impossible. Furthermore, they point to the current sluggish pace of government as proof that the country cannot bear the burden of a third party.  Yet, most European countries have multi-party systems and few complain about any inability to govern there

Lets identify the role of BF1 BF2

BF1 Claim given by the people who are in support of 2 party system. How did we know its claim? Well the statement itself says some claims that

BF2 A fact is presented

Lets identify the role of both BF1 and 2

BF1 is not in line with main conclusion

Bf2 is in line with main conclusion (main conclusion is america needs third party system)

Bf2 and bf1 are in opposite direction to each other

Which of the following best describes the functions of the two sections in boldface in the argument above?

C. The first supports the main position held by opponents of the main point; the second is a premise that argues against that position.- BF1 is not a support for main position held by opponents but it is itself a position hence this one is incorrect

D. The first is the primary claim made by opponents of the main point of the argument; the second is evidence proposed in opposition to the first.- whereas this captures accurately for both BF1 n 2

Hope this helps

KarishmaB · Answer

I agree that (D) is better than (C) but the two are too close for comfort to be an official question, and also, my reason for picking (D) is not the one the official explanation gives.

Author's Premise:
  most European countries have multi-party systems and few complain about any inability to govern there - BF2

Author's Conclusion:
 What America needs is a permanent third party.

Opponents' Argument:
  America’s success stems from the two party system. - BF1  (claim)
A third party would make the passage of legislation and thus governance impossible. (claim)
Look at the current sluggish pace of government as proof that the country cannot bear the burden of a third party. (support to the claims)

C. The first supports the main position held by opponents of the main point; the second is a premise that argues against that position.

I could argue that the first does support the main position of opposition which would be "America should not have a permanent third party" even if it is not mentioned explicitly. After all, the opponents are opposing "America needs a permanent third party."
But the second BF does not argue against that position. It argues against the supporting claim that a third party would make the passage of legislation and thus governance impossible.
Hence I would say (C) is incorrect.

D. The first is the primary claim made by opponents of the main point of the argument; the second is evidence proposed in opposition to the first.

The first can be called the primary claim made by the opponents. The other claim ( A third party would make the passage of legislation and thus governance impossible.) further elaborates BF1. The second BF1 does provide evidence counter to the first claim and hence this works.

Political analyst: A party that temporarily positions itself in the ne

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

Political analyst: A party that temporarily positions itself in the ne

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