Last visit was: 18 Apr 2025, 16:47 It is currently 18 Apr 2025, 16:47
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
User avatar
chunjuwu
Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Last visit: 01 Aug 2005
Posts: 541
Own Kudos:
4,702
 [40]
Location: Taiwan
Posts: 541
Kudos: 4,702
 [40]
8
Kudos
Add Kudos
31
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Most Helpful Reply
User avatar
MA
Joined: 25 Nov 2004
Last visit: 09 Aug 2011
Posts: 701
Own Kudos:
496
 [5]
Posts: 701
Kudos: 496
 [5]
4
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
General Discussion
User avatar
ywilfred
Joined: 07 Jul 2004
Last visit: 06 Mar 2012
Posts: 1,992
Own Kudos:
1,990
 [2]
Location: Singapore
Posts: 1,992
Kudos: 1,990
 [2]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
vprabhala
Joined: 21 Sep 2004
Last visit: 10 Aug 2005
Posts: 223
Own Kudos:
Posts: 223
Kudos: 157
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
C is the assumption here.. where in it says that there is only one way to win the re election.
User avatar
Vithal
Joined: 01 Feb 2003
Last visit: 02 Jan 2020
Posts: 406
Own Kudos:
708
 [1]
Location: Hyderabad
 Q49  V35
Posts: 406
Kudos: 708
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
A is the best...the argument here is about neglecting the interests of the constituences

Negation test will lead only to A
avatar
HongHu
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Last visit: 25 Apr 2011
Posts: 966
Own Kudos:
786
 [2]
Posts: 966
Kudos: 786
 [2]
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Fact: Campaigning involves spending time and energy to cater the national party officials.
Conclusion: Officials who campaign for reelection will neglect local interest.

Ask for assumption.

Assumption would be what links the fact to the conclusion, ie. catering national party officials means neglecting local interest.

(A) Catering to the interests of national party officials sometimes conflicts with serving the interests of a provincial or state official’s local constituencies.
This is it.
User avatar
Prema
Joined: 08 Feb 2005
Last visit: 14 Apr 2005
Posts: 14
Own Kudos:
Posts: 14
Kudos: 5
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
What is wrong with C. A & C are quite alike.
User avatar
Marina
Joined: 01 Feb 2005
Last visit: 15 Apr 2005
Posts: 30
Own Kudos:
Location: NYC
Posts: 30
Kudos: 28
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
A because:

Conclusion in the statement :

“The elected officials who campaign for reelection while they are in office thus often fail to serve the interests of their local constituenciesâ€
User avatar
chunjuwu
Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Last visit: 01 Aug 2005
Posts: 541
Own Kudos:
Location: Taiwan
Posts: 541
Kudos: 4,702
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
campaigning for election to provincial or state office frequently requires that a candidate spend much time and energy catering to the interests of national party officials who can help the candidate to win office. The elected officials who campaign for reelection while they are in office thus often fail to serve the interests of their local constituencies.

The two blue sentences just prove that these two activities are conflicting sometimes.

But C says '......are well served only by ........'

I think it's not necessarily the cause and effect relationship.

Besides, it's too absolute.

OA is A.

Thanks
User avatar
metallicafan
User avatar
Retired Moderator
Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Last visit: 26 Aug 2020
Posts: 762
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 109
Status:2000 posts! I don't know whether I should feel great or sad about it! LOL
Location: Peru
Concentration: Finance, SMEs, Developing countries, Public sector and non profit organizations
Schools:Harvard, Stanford, Wharton, MIT & HKS (Government)
GPA: 4.0
WE 1: Economic research
WE 2: Banking
WE 3: Government: Foreign Trade and SMEs
Posts: 762
Kudos: 4,238
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
+1 A

If the interests of the party don't conflict with the interests of the local citizens, we could not conclude that the elected officials who campaign for reelection will fail in serving the interests of those citizens.
avatar
nooneownstoday
Joined: 12 Jan 2016
Last visit: 16 Jan 2018
Posts: 4
Given Kudos: 2
Posts: 4
Kudos: 0
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Prema
What is wrong with C. A & C are quite alike.
C is pretty much an extremist view.Assuming it is not viable.
avatar
Kanika3agg
Joined: 09 May 2018
Last visit: 20 Feb 2021
Posts: 96
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 75
Posts: 96
Kudos: 79
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Campaigning for election to provincial or state office frequently requires that a candidate spend much time and energy catering to the interests of national party officials who can help the candidate to win office. The elected officials who campaign for reelection while they are in office thus often fail to serve the interests of their local consistencies.

Pre thinking - Conclusion - The elected officials fail to serve the interests of their local constituencies.
Argument 1 - They serve national party officials who will help him to win the elections.

Assumption - Candidate cant do both the things simultaneously. He can also serve his constituency and the national party officials.

Which one of the following is an assumption made by the argument?

(A) Catering to the interests of national party officials sometimes conflicts with serving the interests of a provincial or state official’s local constituencies. - When conflict happens, he cant do both things simultaneously.

(B) Only by catering to the interests of national party officials can those who hold provincial or state office win reelection. - We are not concerned how we will win the elections.

(C) The interests of local constituencies are well served only by elected officials who do not cater to the interests of national party officials. -extreme assumption

(D) Officials elected to provincial or state office are obligated to serve only the interests of constituents who belong to the same party as do the officials. - All the constituents may not be from the same party. the argument is talking about candidates' own constituency.

(E) All elected officials are likely to seek reelection to those offices that are not limited to one term. - Irrelevant, we dont care about which offices they want to be elected to.
User avatar
unraveled
Joined: 07 Mar 2019
Last visit: 10 Apr 2025
Posts: 2,733
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 764
Location: India
WE:Sales (Energy)
Posts: 2,733
Kudos: 2,101
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Campaigning for election to provincial or state office frequently requires that a candidate spend much time and energy catering to the interests of national party officials who can help the candidate to win office. The elected officials who campaign for reelection while they are in office thus often fail to serve the interests of their local consistencies.

Which one of the following is an assumption made by the argument?

(A) Catering to the interests of national party officials sometimes conflicts with serving the interests of a provincial or state official’s local constituencies. - CORRECT. If so, then it is equally possible that interests of their local consistencies are left out. If not then there is trouble.

(B) Only by catering to the interests of national party officials can those who hold provincial or state office win reelection. - WRONG. Not necessary.

(C) The interests of local constituencies are well served only by elected officials who do not cater to the interests of national party officials. - WORNG. Unfortunately chose this one. Well at one point is true but this is not necessarily always true. Since there's still scope left after, it is not the correct answer.

(D) Officials elected to provincial or state office are obligated to serve only the interests of constituents who belong to the same party as do the officials. - WORNG. Irrelevant. Scope shift

(E) All elected officials are likely to seek reelection to those offices that are not limited to one term. - WRONG. Everything is wrong with this one.

What might have been a possible reason behind the highlighted text? A and C are equally good.

Answer A.
avatar
RiyaJain69
Joined: 30 Dec 2020
Last visit: 07 Apr 2025
Posts: 105
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 109
Location: India
GMAT 1: 700 Q48 V39
GMAT 1: 700 Q48 V39
Posts: 105
Kudos: 57
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Here's why I chose B over A: the use of "sometimes" in option A and the use of "often" in the argument's conclusion.
Conclusion: The elected officials... often fail to serve the interests of their local constituencies.
Option A: Catering to... party officials sometimes conflicts with serving the interests of... local constituencies.

If negated, A will read: Catering to... party officials SOMETIMES DOES NOT CONFLICT with serving the interests of... local constituencies.
This does not break the argument, since our conclusion is that elected official OFTEN FAIL to serve local constituencies.
Re-election campaign can sometimes not conflict with serving local constituencies but could result in candidates often failing to serve. It's consistent. That's why I eliminated A.

What's wrong with my reasoning?
User avatar
vishalsinghvs08
Joined: 08 Oct 2014
Last visit: 07 Feb 2025
Posts: 65
Own Kudos:
11
 [1]
Given Kudos: 61
Posts: 65
Kudos: 11
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
(A) Catering to the interests of national party officials sometimes conflicts with serving the interests of a provincial or state official???s local constituencies.

Negation -Catering to the interests of national party officials never conflicts with serving the interests of a provincial or state official???s local constituencies. This destroys the argument.


(C) The interests of local constituencies are well served only by elected officials who do not cater to the interests of national party officials.

Negation 1 - The interests of local constituencies are well served not only by elected officials who do not cater to the interests of national party officials. Does not destroy the argument.

Negation 2 - The interests of local constituencies are well served only by elected officials who cater to the interests of national party officials. Could a contender.

Since the negation leads to conflicting results. I will go with A.

Is my understanding correct here? Please help. Thank you
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 18 Apr 2025
Posts: 7,276
Own Kudos:
67,562
 [1]
Given Kudos: 1,916
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,276
Kudos: 67,562
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
vishalsinghvs08
Catering to the interests of national party officials sometimes conflicts with serving the interests of a provincial or state official???s local constituencies.

Negation -Catering to the interests of national party officials never conflicts with serving the interests of a provincial or state official???s local constituencies. This destroys the argument.

(C) The interests of local constituencies are well served only by elected officials who do not cater to the interests of national party officials.

Negation 1 - The interests of local constituencies are well served not only by elected officials who do not cater to the interests of national party officials. Does not destroy the argument.

Negation 2 - The interests of local constituencies are well served only by elected officials who cater to the interests of national party officials. Could a contender.

Since the negation leads to conflicting results. I will go with A.

Is my understanding correct here? Please help. Thank you
The negation test can be tricky to implement, partly because there are often multiple ways to negate an answer choice. Another way to think about assumption questions is to ask, "does this answer choice NEED to be true in order for the author's argument to hold up?"

Here's (C):

Quote:
The interests of local constituencies are well served only by elected officials who do not cater to the interests of national party officials.
The word "only" stands out here. Does it need to be true that locals can ONLY be well served by provincial/state officials who don't cater to national interests?

Nope, that goes too far. The author concludes that "the elected officials who campaign for reelection while they are in office thus OFTEN fail to serve the interests of their local consistencies." So, the author doesn't say that provincial/state officials who serve national interests ALWAYS stink. They just often fail to serve local interests. There may be a few provincial/state officials who can serve both national and local interests. That means that we don't NEED to assume the information in (C).

Compare that to (A):

Quote:
Catering to the interests of national party officials sometimes conflicts with serving the interests of a provincial or state official’s local constituencies.
The word "sometimes" is important in (A). To conclude that provincial/state officials seeking reelection sometimes fail their local constituents, it must be true that sometimes the local and national interests conflict.

We absolutely need the info in (A) in order for the argument to hold up, so (A) is an assumption made by the argument.

I hope that helps!
User avatar
KarishmaB
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 18 Apr 2025
Posts: 15,889
Own Kudos:
72,676
 [3]
Given Kudos: 462
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 15,889
Kudos: 72,676
 [3]
3
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
chunjuwu
Campaigning for election to provincial or state office frequently requires that a candidate spend much time and energy catering to the interests of national party officials who can help the candidate to win office. The elected officials who campaign for reelection while they are in office thus often fail to serve the interests of their local consistencies.

Which one of the following is an assumption made by the argument?

(A) Catering to the interests of national party officials sometimes conflicts with serving the interests of a provincial or state official’s local constituencies.

(B) Only by catering to the interests of national party officials can those who hold provincial or state office win reelection.

(C) The interests of local constituencies are well served only by elected officials who do not cater to the interests of national party officials.

(D) Officials elected to provincial or state office are obligated to serve only the interests of constituents who belong to the same party as do the officials.

(E) All elected officials are likely to seek reelection to those offices that are not limited to one term.

Source : LSAT PrepTest 21
­This question helps us understand the distinction between necessary and sufficient assumptions. It is all based on quantifiers here.

Premise: Campaigning for election to provincial or state office frequently requires that a candidate cater to the interests of national party officials.

Conclusion: The elected officials who campaign for reelection while they are in office thus often fail to serve the interests of their local constituencies.

The conclusion is not that elected officials who campaign for reelection while they are in office always fail to serve the interests of their local constituencies. We are saying 'they often fail to serve.' They are required to cater to national party officials and hence they often fail to serve local interests. They could sometimes serve local interests while catering to national party officials, but they often fail.

What is the assumption here? That if an elected official caters to national party officials, he could fail to serve the interests of the local constituencies. This is necessary.

Look at the options.

(A) Catering to the interests of national party officials sometimes conflicts with serving the interests of a provincial or state official’s local constituencies.

Correct. This is an assumption. Let's negate it. Negation of 'sometimes' will be 'never'

Negated (A): Catering to the interests of national party officials never conflicts with serving the interests of a provincial or state official’s local constituencies.

Now can our conclusion hold? No. We are given that Catering to the interests of national party officials never conflicts with local constituencies' interests. Then the elected officials would not fail to serve the interests of their local constituencies while campaigning. Makes complete sense.

This is the answer.

(B) Only by catering to the interests of national party officials can those who hold provincial or state office win reelection.

Our conclusion is not about winning elections. It is about elected officials failing to serve the interests of their local constituencies.

(C) The interests of local constituencies are well served only by elected officials who do not cater to the interests of national party officials.

Now this is interesting and it may make you question your selection of (A) even though you were sure that (A) was correct. That is because it is a sufficient assumption which fits better with the conclusion but is not the right answer when we are looking for a necessary assumption (called just 'assumption').
It tells us that not catering to national party officials is necessary to serve the interests of local constituencies. But this is not an assumption of the author. He only says that they often fail to serve the interests of local constituencies, not that they cannot serve the interests of local constituencies if they cater to national party officials. Hence this option is not a necessary assumption.

It is, in fact, a sufficient assumption, not necessary. Let's plug it with the premises to see whether the conclusion logically follows.

Premises:
Campaigning for election to provincial or state office frequently requires that a candidate cater to the interests of national party officials.
Not catering to national party officials is necessary to serve the interests of local constituencies

Conclusion: The elected officials who campaign for reelection while they are in office thus often fail to serve the interests of their local constituencies.

Our conclusion logically follows from the given premises now.

Hence option (C) is not a necessary assumption but a sufficient assumption.

(D) Officials elected to provincial or state office are obligated to serve only the interests of constituents who belong to the same party as do the officials.

Irrelevant. No discussion on which type of local constituents they are obligated to serve.

(E) All elected officials are likely to seek reelection to those offices that are not limited to one term.

Whether all elected officials seek reelection or not, we don't care. We are discussing what happens when they do seek reelection.

Answer (A)

Discussion on Assumption Questions: https://youtu.be/O0ROJfljRLUA Hard Assumption Question: https://youtu.be/0j4tovGifIg
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7276 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
233 posts