KAPLAN OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

With most elections being largely conducted via the media these days, it's no surprise that this candidate is worried that apparently negative media coverage will weaken his chances of getting elected. His manager tries to reassure him by providing the results of an email survey of 1,000 people, only 25 of whom responded negatively to the candidate as a result of the media coverage. The question stem directs us to find a weakness in the manager's argument, and it lies in the survey. What if others who are skeptical about the candidate simply didn't respond to the survey? The fact that only 25 responded negatively does not necessarily mean that the other 975 are okay with the reports and have confidence in the candidate's ability to lead, although this is the interpretation the manager implies.

An 800 test taker, when presented with a survey, asks whether the supposed results accurately represent the views of the whole group surveyed.

(E) picks up on this problem in the manager's argument: If the skeptics were disinclined to respond to the survey, then the conclusion that the candidate need not worry may be unfounded, and the candidate's concern may be legit. (E) is the correct answer.

An 800 test taker is expert at "putting two and two together"—in this case, the fact that we're looking for a vulnerability in the manager's argument and that her argument is based on a survey. That's no coincidence. To an 800 test taker, (E) jumps out as the most common logical flaw associated with surveys: the failure to accurately interpret the response.

(A) is beyond the argument's temporal scope. The candidate and his manager only discuss the impact of the recent media coverage; the possible effects of future coverage don't play a relevant role in that discussion.

(B) identifies a possible use to which the candidate's opponent might put the media coverage, but that too is outside the scope. Maybe the opponent's survey won't show any residual concerns based on the survey, or maybe it will. By itself, (B) doesn't point out a weakness in the argument.

(C) There's no indication that the survey was intended to hide its main focus; presumably, those surveyed knew that the survey was intended to measure the fallout from the media coverage. So (C) need not be something that the campaign manager's argument fails to acknowledge.

(D) deals with television interviews, which show up in the candidate's argument but not in his campaign manager's. Therefore, (D) doesn't identify a problem with the manager's argument.
_________________

Candidate: I am worried about the effects that the recent media coverage of my personal life will have on my chances of gaining office. Even though the reports are untrue, some voters interviewed on television, in response to these reports, have already expressed doubts regarding my ability to lead.

Campaign manager: Your concern is unfounded. Of 1,000 people in this city randomly surveyed by e-mail, only 25 have responded that their perception of your ability to lead has been negatively impacted by the recent media coverage.

The campaign manager's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the ground that it fails to acknowledge the possibility that


(A) future media reports that follow up on the story of the candidate's personal life will further damage the public's perception of the candidate's ability to lead Incorrect

Campaign manager was not say about future media reports, so irrelevant

(B) the candidate's main opponent will use the opportunity created by the recent media coverage to conduct her own survey to assess the damage done to her opponent's credibility Incorrect

not related with Campaign manager argument

(C) the voting public would understand that its reaction to the recent media coverage of the candidate's personal life was the intended primary focus of the survey Incorrect

so survey result would be wrong, if was not express original perception; weakens argument but opposite process can be happen

(D) opinions expressed in television interviews are not always the most reliable indicator of how interviewees are likely to act in given situations Incorrect

it partially weakens argument,

(E) many of those surveyed who are skeptical of the candidate's ability to lead due to the recent reports did not respond to the survey Correct

survey result will be wrong, because number of negative impact will be higher

IMO E

Let's break down the argument.

Candidate: I am worried about the effects that the recent media coverage of my personal life will have on my chances of gaining office.
[Assumption: Candidate's personal life might be bad/not good enough for the portrayal]
Even though the reports are untrue, some voters interviewed on television, in response to these reports, have already expressed doubts regarding my ability to lead. [Candidate defends but looks like voters have formed an opinion already]

Campaign manager: Your concern is unfounded. Of 1,000 people in this city randomly surveyed by e-mail, only 25 have responded that their perception of your ability to lead has been negatively impacted by the recent media coverage.
[Assumption : The response from those 1000 people is good enough an indicator to predict the results]
To weaken : If we can somehow prove that the results are not reliable or that those 1000 are merely a chunk of a larger population, we will be able to weaken the claim made by the campaign manager.

The campaign manager's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the ground that it fails to acknowledge the possibility that


(A) future media reports that follow up on the story of the candidate's personal life will further damage the public's perception of the candidate's ability to lead
Does not weaken the conclusion

(B) the candidate's main opponent will use the opportunity created by the recent media coverage to conduct her own survey to assess the damage done to her opponent's credibility
We are not bothered about the opponent's campaign

(C) the voting public would understand that its reaction to the recent media coverage of the candidate's personal life was the intended primary focus of the survey
Does not weaken the conclusion

(D) opinions expressed in television interviews are not always the most reliable indicator of how interviewees are likely to act in given situations
This indirectly cushions the conclusion

(E) many of those surveyed who are skeptical of the candidate's ability to lead due to the recent reports did not respond to the survey
Inline with the pre-thinking as discussed above.
Correct.

Conclusion: Out of 1,000 people in this city randomly surveyed by e-mail, only 25 have responded negatively impacted by the recent media coverage. So, there is no concern of negative image.

Pre-thinking: What happens, if people who are negative about the candidate's image didn't respond.

The campaign manager's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the ground that it fails to acknowledge the possibility that

(A) future media reports that follow up on the story of the candidate's personal life will further damage the public's perception of the candidate's ability to lead -> Irrelevant.

(B) the candidate's main opponent will use the opportunity created by the recent media coverage to conduct her own survey to assess the damage done to her opponent's credibility-> Irrelevant.

(C) the voting public would understand that its reaction to the recent media coverage of the candidate's personal life was the intended primary focus of the survey -> It doesn't answer the, why 25 people only responded negatively.

(D) opinions expressed in television interviews are not always the most reliable indicator of how interviewees are likely to act in given situations -> Irrelevant.

(E) many of those surveyed who are skeptical of the candidate's ability to lead due to the recent reports did not respond to the survey-> It is as per our pre-thinking.

SO, I think E