GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 23 Oct 2019, 06:39

### 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

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

# Congressman: The amount of money donated each year to the campaigns

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Target Test Prep Representative
Status: Chief Curriculum and Content Architect
Affiliations: Target Test Prep
Joined: 24 Nov 2014
Posts: 619
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Congressman: The amount of money donated each year to the campaigns  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Oct 2017, 20:27
00:00

Difficulty:

35% (medium)

Question Stats:

76% (02:07) correct 24% (02:25) wrong based on 280 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Congressman: The amount of money donated each year to the campaigns of candidates for elected office has been increasing for decades, and in the vast majority of elections held in recent years, the candidate who has received the most donated money has won. Only after changing campaign finance laws so that they better combat the money driven nature of today’s electoral process will we have a situation such that elections generally result in the most qualified candidates winning.

Which of the following must be assumed in coming to the above conclusion?

A. Voters would be better off if only the government were allowed to provide financing to campaigns of candidates for elected office.

B. It is not usually the case that, of the candidates running in an election, the candidate most qualified for the office sought receives the most in financial donations.

C. In the past, it was not the case that in the vast majority of elections the candidate who had received the most donated money won.

D. Campaign finance laws in effect currently are less effective in combating campaign finance related distortions of the electoral process than were laws in effect in the past.

E. There is no way for the average voter to determine which of the candidates in an election is the most qualified for the office the candidates are seeking.

Source: TTP Beta Testing

_________________

# Marty Murray

Chief Curriculum and Content Architect

Marty@targettestprep.com
122 Reviews

5-star rated online GMAT quant
self study course

See why Target Test Prep is the top rated GMAT quant course on GMAT Club. Read Our Reviews

If you find one of my posts helpful, please take a moment to click on the "Kudos" button.

Manager
Joined: 15 Feb 2017
Posts: 76
Congressman: The amount of money donated each year to the campaigns  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Oct 2017, 03:20
6
Option B is correct.
Conclusion:
Only after changing campaign finance laws so that they better combat the money driven nature of today’s electoral process will we have a situation such that elections generally result in the most qualified candidates winning.
Negate Option B.
It is usually the case that, of the candidates running in an election, the candidate most qualified for the office sought receives the most in financial donations.
The Conclusion of the argument falls apart.
Please give me kudos earnestly. I need them to unlock Gmatclub tests.
##### General Discussion
Status: Preparing for GMAT
Joined: 25 Nov 2015
Posts: 1044
Location: India
GPA: 3.64
Re: Congressman: The amount of money donated each year to the campaigns  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Oct 2017, 03:35
A. Voters would be better off if only the government were allowed to provide financing to campaigns of candidates for elected office. - Incorrect.

B. It is not usually the case that, of the candidates running in an election, the candidate most qualified for the office sought receives the most in financial donations. - Correct. If we negate this statement the argument falls apart.

C. In the past, it was not the case that in the vast majority of elections the candidate who had received the most donated money won. - Incorrect.

D. Campaign finance laws in effect currently are less effective in combating campaign finance related distortions of the electoral process than were laws in effect in the past. - Incorrect

E. There is no way for the average voter to determine which of the candidates in an election is the most qualified for the office the candidates are seeking. - Incorrect.
_________________
Please give kudos, if you like my post

When the going gets tough, the tough gets going...
Director
Joined: 20 Sep 2016
Posts: 634
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Operations
GPA: 3.95
WE: Operations (Real Estate)
Congressman: The amount of money donated each year to the campaigns  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Feb 2019, 06:15
MartyTargetTestPrep wrote:
Congressman: The amount of money donated each year to the campaigns of candidates for elected office has been increasing for decades, and in the vast majority of elections held in recent years, the candidate who has received the most donated money has won. Only after changing campaign finance laws so that they better combat the money driven nature of today’s electoral process will we have a situation such that elections generally result in the most qualified candidates winning.

Which of the following must be assumed in coming to the above conclusion?

A. Voters would be better off if only the government were allowed to provide financing to campaigns of candidates for elected office.

B. It is not usually the case that, of the candidates running in an election, the candidate most qualified for the office sought receives the most in financial donations.

C. In the past, it was not the case that in the vast majority of elections the candidate who had received the most donated money won.

D. Campaign finance laws in effect currently are less effective in combating campaign finance related distortions of the electoral process than were laws in effect in the past.

E. There is no way for the average voter to determine which of the candidates in an election is the most qualified for the office the candidates are seeking.

Source: TTP Beta Testing

MartyTargetTestPrep

After discarding options A C and D . I was down to B and E. I chose B , as that was the link that clicked in my mind as soon as i read the argument.

BUT, i think i can make an argument for E too.
Past pattern : the candidate who has received the most donated money has won.
conclusion : Only after changing campaign finance laws so that they better combat the money driven nature of today’s electoral process will we have a situation such that elections generally result in the most qualified candidates winning.
The conclusion can also be restated as : there is NO OTHER WAY than changing finance laws to get that situation.

In this interpretation we are assuming that there is no other way along with the assumption of CNDITION NO EXISTING ie, even if we dont cahnge finance laws (that asumption is B)

Option E.: There is no way for the average voter to determine which of the candidates in an election is the most qualified for the office the candidates are seeking.
NOW if we negate this by saying : there is a way for the avg voter bla bla bla, Then the condition "only after" does not stand UNLESS the way that we are speaking in E about is the finance way.. That is the avg candidate judges the candidate by the means of amount spent by the candidate !!! If this the case then E is not an assumption. If this is not the case then E is the assumtion
Additionally, Option E alks about "knowing" who is the best candidate but are we sure that the voters vote the same guy?? or are they drawn to money?/

NOW assumptions have to be true for the conclusion to be sound. In this test E doesnt fit in and B wins...

I wsh to know if my reasoning is right, if not please correct me and while doing s please be elaborative !! Thankyou
generis your views on this one
Target Test Prep Representative
Status: Chief Curriculum and Content Architect
Affiliations: Target Test Prep
Joined: 24 Nov 2014
Posts: 619
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Congressman: The amount of money donated each year to the campaigns  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Feb 2019, 06:47
After discarding options A C and D . I was down to B and E. I chose B , as that was the link that clicked in my mind as soon as i read the argument.

BUT, i think i can make an argument for E too.
Past pattern : the candidate who has received the most donated money has won.
conclusion : Only after changing campaign finance laws so that they better combat the money driven nature of today’s electoral process will we have a situation such that elections generally result in the most qualified candidates winning.
The conclusion can also be restated as : there is NO OTHER WAY than changing finance laws to get that situation.

In this interpretation we are assuming that there is no other way along with the assumption of CNDITION NO EXISTING ie, even if we dont cahnge finance laws (that asumption is B)

Option E.: There is no way for the average voter to determine which of the candidates in an election is the most qualified for the office the candidates are seeking.

NOW if we negate this by saying : there is a way for the avg voter bla bla bla, Then the condition "only after" does not stand UNLESS the way that we are speaking in E about is the finance way.. That is the avg candidate judges the candidate by the means of amount spent by the candidate !!! If this the case then E is not an assumption. If this is not the case then E is the assumtion
Additionally, Option E alks about "knowing" who is the best candidate but are we sure that the voters vote the same guy?? or are they drawn to money?/

NOW assumptions have to be true for the conclusion to be sound. In this test E doesnt fit in and B wins...

I wsh to know if my reasoning is right, if not please correct me and while doing s please be elaborative !! Thankyou
generis your views on this one

There is a key issue with E.

The argument is about the influence of money on who gets elected.

E is about whether there is a way, ANY WAY, for the average voter to determine which candidate is the most qualified.

Whether money unduly influences election results and whether there is some way for the average voter to determine which candidate is the most qualified are related but different topics.

Consider the following.

It could be the case that it would be relatively easy for a voter to determine which candidate is most qualified, by doing some research online, for instance, and yet voters do not bother to do so. In such a case, even though voters COULD determine which candidate is most qualified, they don't and, instead, are influenced by well-funded campaigns.

It could also be the case that it is difficult for the average voter to determine which candidate is most qualified, and yet still possible. In such a case, it may be easy to win an election by using a well-funded campaign, and yet, even still, it would not be true that there is NO WAY for the average voter to determine which candidate is most qualified.

So, making the argument that only through changing campaign finance laws will we have a situation such that elections generally result in the most qualified candidates winning does not require assuming that there is NO WAY for the average voter to determine which candidate is most qualified.

_________________

# Marty Murray

Chief Curriculum and Content Architect

Marty@targettestprep.com
122 Reviews

5-star rated online GMAT quant
self study course

See why Target Test Prep is the top rated GMAT quant course on GMAT Club. Read Our Reviews

If you find one of my posts helpful, please take a moment to click on the "Kudos" button.

Congressman: The amount of money donated each year to the campaigns   [#permalink] 10 Feb 2019, 06:47
Display posts from previous: Sort by