Editor: Many candidates say that if elected they will reduce governmen

Question

Editor: Many candidates say that if elected they will reduce governmental intrusion into voters’ lives. But voters actually elect politicians who instead promise that the government will provide assistance to solve their most pressing problems.
Governmental assistance, however, costs money, and money can come only from taxes, which can be considered a form of governmental intrusion. Thus, governmental intrusion into the lives of voters will rarely be substantially reduced over
time in a democracy.

Which one of the following, if true, would most strengthen the editor’s argument?

(A) Politicians who win their elections usually keep their campaign promises.

(B) Politicians never promise what they really intend to do once in office.

(C) The most common problems people have are financial problems.

(D) Governmental intrusion into the lives of voters is no more burdensome in nondemocratic countries than it is in democracies.

(E) Politicians who promise to do what they actually believe ought to be done are rarely elected.

Source: LSAT

KS15 · Answer

A strengthens the argument

sandeep211986 · Answer

I do agree with the reasoning my choice A.

testcracker · Answer

Voters will elect politicians who will provide government assistance to solve pressing problems; government assistance will come at a cost generated from taxes; tax is one kind of intrusion which according to the editor will not substantially be reduced as politicians when elected keep their promise, providing government assistance

A wins

GMATSkilled · Answer

(A) Politicians who win their elections usually keep their campaign promises.  If politicians keep their campaign promise - that the government will provide assistance to solve people's most pressing problems - then it would be a case of government assistance. Since Government assistance = Government intrusion, this strengthens the argument

(B) Politicians never promise what they really intend to do once in office.  If the promise is to provide assistance to solve the most pressing problems but once elected politicians never deliver on their promise, then this actually weakens the argument

(C) The most common problems people have are financial problems.  This has no impact on the argument

(D) Governmental intrusion into the lives of voters is no more burdensome in nondemocratic countries than it is in democracies.  I would consider this to be out of scope as the comparison between democratic & non-democratic countries was never in question

(E) Politicians who promise to do what they actually believe ought to be done are rarely elected.  This weakens the argument. If those who deliver on their promise are rarely elected, then governmental intrusion should definitely reduce.

gmatexam439 · Answer

Editor: Many candidates say that if elected they will reduce governmental intrusion into voters’ lives. But voters actually elect politicians who instead promise that the government will provide assistance to solve their most pressing problems.
Governmental assistance, however, costs money, and money can come only from taxes, which can be considered a form of governmental intrusion. Thus, governmental intrusion into the lives of voters will rarely be substantially reduced over
time in a democracy.

Which one of the following, if true, would most strengthen the editor’s argument?

(A) Politicians who win their elections usually keep their campaign promises. -- Correct. If they keep their promises then they will solve problems and taxes will never be reduced and thus, government intrusion will never be reduced.

(B) Politicians never promise what they really intend to do once in office. -- Weakener. If they never do what they promise then they won't solve public's problems and they will not increase taxes and government's intrusion will not increase.

(C) The most common problems people have are financial problems. -- Out of scope

(D) Governmental intrusion into the lives of voters is no more burdensome in nondemocratic countries than it is in democracies. -- Wrong comparison (unrelated to the argument)

(E) Politicians who promise to do what they actually believe ought to be done are rarely elected. -- This option is similar to option B. Weakener.

AdityaHongunti · Answer

This is a great example of  cycle logic .  Tis logic is often tested in GMAT.

X leads to Y 
Y leads to Z
Z leads to A
therefore X leads to A.

now the cycle will only complete if all the links follow. All you have to do is find one link which can be broken and hence the following logic wont follow.

the argument :
X: politicians concerned abt public's issue
Y : need money
Z: taxes
A: govt. intrusion

you can join all the links and check if one of the links can be broken !! 
for eg : X - what if public no more cares about issues?? logic falls OR whtat if politicians supporting issuesdont get elected or dont keep their words
Z: what if we get money from somewhere else??

Keep this in mind ...there are GMAT Q's in which the conclusion mentions  " vicious cycle"

unflinchingSubhs · Answer

@GMATNinja@VeritasKarishma

Can you please help how understand the cyclical logic. I was unable to understand the reasoning behind A being the right answer choice.

CrackverbalGMAT · Answer

Hi

Let me try to address your query. The argument is structured as below:

Voters elect politicians who promise that the government will provide assistance to solve their most pressing problems (P) --> Governmental assistance costs money (Q) --> Money can come only from taxes (R) --> Taxes can be considered a form of governmental intrusion (S) --> S will not substantially reduce over time.

So the argument makes the point that since (P) happens, S will not reduce over time in a democracy. This clearly makes an underlying assumption that politicians will actually implement P upon being elected.

Option (A) states that explicitly, which strengthens the argument. If we negate option (A)  , then P does not occur and hence the overall argument also fails. This too shows (A) to be the correct answer.

Hope this helps.

CEdward · Answer

I initially picked A and it's a good answer.

The problem is I agree with Yash, C is also compelling.

Voters elect people who will provide them with assistance....but that assistance costs money. If people's issue are primarily financial in nature, then taxation will only exacerbate the problem (or keep it from being reduced b/c any help provided is at least partially offset by the taxes).

Hmmmm

soondoobu · Answer

Editor: Many candidates say that if elected they will reduce governmental intrusion into voters’ lives. But voters actually elect politicians who instead promise that the government will provide assistance to solve their most pressing problems.
Governmental assistance, however, costs money, and money can come only from taxes, which can be considered a form of governmental intrusion. Thus, governmental intrusion into the lives of voters will rarely be substantially reduced over
time in a democracy.

Conclusion: Governmental intrusion into the lives of voters will rarely be subtantially reduced over time in a democracy.

Which one of the following, if true, would most strengthen the editor’s argument?

(A) Politicians who win their elections usually keep their campaign promises.  this is the oppostie of answer choice B, and thus strenghtens the arugment

(B) Politicians never promise what they really intend to do once in office.  this weakens the arguemnt

(C) The most common problems people have are financial problems. this does not support the editors' argument

(D) Governmental intrusion into the lives of voters is no more burdensome in nondemocratic countries than it is in democracies. comparing democratic countries and nondemocratic countries is irrelevant to the argument

(E) Politicians who promise to do what they actually believe ought to be done are rarely elected.  this can go either way.

TheGraceful · Answer

My 2 cents here.

Editor: Many candidates say that if elected they will reduce governmental intrusion into voters’ lives. But voters actually elect politicians who instead promise that the government will provide assistance to solve their most pressing problems.
Governmental assistance, however, costs money, and money can come only from taxes, which can be considered a form of governmental intrusion. Thus, governmental intrusion into the lives of voters will rarely be substantially reduced over time in a democracy.

Premise  : Many candidates say that if elected they will reduce governmental intrusion into voters’ lives.
  Premise   : Voters   actually elect politicians who   instead  promise  that the  government  will provide assistance   to solve their most pressing problems.
  Premise :  Governmental assistance, however, costs money, and money can come only from taxes, which can be considered a form of governmental intrusion.
 Conclusion :  Governmental intrusion  into the lives of voters  will rarely be substantially reduced  over time in a democracy.

Which one of the following, if true, would most strengthen the editor’s argument?

(A) Politicians  who win  their elections usually  keep their  campaign  promises .  ==> Yes, people elect candidates who promise to provide assistance, which will cost money, and money come from taxes and taxes are govt. intrusion.  Thus, As long as people elect politicians who keep promise, govt. intrusion will not be reduced .

(B) Politicians never promise what they really intend to do once in office.  ==> But premise says people don't elect such candidates.

(C) The most common problems people have are financial problems.  ==> Out of scope. does NOT relate to both premise and conclusion

(D) Governmental intrusion into the lives of voters is no more burdensome in nondemocratic countries than it is in democracies.  ==> Out of scope. does NOT relate to both premise and conclusion

(E) Politicians who promise to do what they actually believe ought to be done are rarely elected. = => Yes and then it will not be burden nor intrusion. NOT impacting conclusion.

Hope this helps. Please press kudos, if my efforts helped you in any way.

Bambi2021 · Answer

E is not totally out of the blue here. It implies that politicians works against an ungainly apparatus which they cant do much about anyway. Hence they promise what the people wants to hear and they are sort of forced to comply with public opinion even if they really believes that something else should be done for the greater good. As a result, changes to policy will hardly be observable.

Posted from my mobile device

Posted from my mobile device

unraveled · Answer

A question where the structure is something like this question has - "Editor: OR Candidate: OR Politician: OR Historian: OR Environmentalist: OR Biologist: OR XYZ:".
In this kind of question normally the person(one of the above as mentioned) talks about someone or something which is presented in third person. Thus, it is common to get fixated with the presenter(author in some sense) and lose the focus to misunderstand the passage. The structure is such that there are layers(causality) which needs to be understood carefully.

Here Editor's protagonists are voters and politicians in the setup called democracy. Though one can easily identify the conclusion answering the questions becomes hard for the reasons stated above(layers). Except A all the options are presenting some generally accepted truths in reality, thus all are wrong for being out of scope or being irrelevant.

Answer A.

S1905 · Answer

GMATNinja   nightblade354

(C) The most common problems people have are financial problems.

I think that this option states that " Since most people have financial problem, so people will be needing financial assistance, so they need sustenance from govt, and govt will provide sustenance from the money obtained in the form of tax from people"
As a result of which the govt intrusion will never stop and cycle continues.

please explain where I am going wrong.

I understand A is correct answer, but guide me to understand the error in my analysis for option C

P.S. - I think this Q was posted earlier by fellow member, but got deleted? Didn't find an answer so posting again.

GMATNinja · Answer

"Governmental assistance" can ease a bunch of problems, not just financial ones. For instance, maybe the most common need is public transportation or education -- the government would have to tax people to solve these non-financial issue.

So, it doesn't matter whether the most common  problems  are financial -- it matters that in  solving  those problems, the government intrudes into voters' lives by taxing them.

That's why (C) doesn't strengthen the argument.

I hope that helps!

hitesharyan · Answer

Option A says that elected candidates keep their campaign promise. So these candidates will not intrude into voters' lives as promised. This follows that they will not levy tax on the populace because they don't want to intrude. Then how can A strengthen the argument?

GMATNinja · Answer

Pay close attention to the words in bold. MANY candidates say one thing, but voters ACTUALLY ELECT politicians who promise something else instead.

The candidates who actually get elected are the ones who promise assistance, not the candidates who promise not to intrude.

I hope that helps!

hitesharyan · Answer

Yes.....I see what I was missing in my logic. Thank you as always for your valuable insights

Editor: Many candidates say that if elected they will reduce governmen

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

Editor: Many candidates say that if elected they will reduce governmen

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