Editorial: In rejecting the plan proposed by parliament to reform the

Question

Editorial: In rejecting the plan proposed by parliament to reform the electoral process, the president clearly acted in the best interests of the nation. Anyone who thinks otherwise should remember that the president made this decision knowing it would be met with fierce opposition at home and widespread disapproval abroad. All citizens who place the nation’s well-being above narrow partisan interests will applaud this courageous action.

The reasoning in the editorial is in error because

(A) it confused a quality that is merely desirable in a political leader with a quality that is essential to effective political decision-making

(B) it fails to distinguish between evidence concerning the courage required to make a certain decision and evidence concerning the wisdom of making that decision

(C) it ignores the likelihood that many citizens have no narrow partisan interest in the proposed election reform plan

(D) it overlooks the possibility that there was strong opposition to the parliament’s plan among members of the president’s own party

(E) it depends on the unwarranted assumption that any plan proposed by a parliament will necessarily serve only narrow partisan interests

KaranB1 · Answer

IMO-B.

Wide disapproval does not on its prove the decision to be in well interest of the nation.

OneLordByron · Answer

I got this in 1:15 and it was fairly clear to me so I hope I can help you out by telling you my reasoning

The core claim of the excerpt is: In rejecting the plan, the President acted in the best interests of the nation. (This was a good, wise decision) The justification given for this claim is: - The president made this decision knowing he would face strong criticism for doing so. (Implication: it was not in his interest do do so. It is courageous of him to do so.) - Those who place the nation's well-being above partisan interest will approve of this action. (Implication: acting against partisan interest is courageous AND in the nation's interest) So the editorial gives evidence that the decision was courageous and concludes that because it was courageous, it was good for the nation (hence wise). But showing an action was courageous is not sufficient evidence to prove it is wise. A courageous action can nonetheless have bad results. Likewise, a president may take an action that goes against narrow partisan interest, and this action may still have bad results. Sometimes, narrow partisan interest and national interest align. Answer: B. The editorial provides evidence of courage, but not of wisdom. Quick edit to eliminate other answers: (A) it confused a quality that is merely desirable in a political leader with a quality that is essential to effective political decision-making This is somewhat close but there is no claim in the editorial that courage is essential to effective political decision-making. (C) it ignores the likelihood that many citizens have no narrow partisan interest in the proposed election reform plan If this was true, so what? Doesn't change the editorial's reasoning (D) it overlooks the possibility that there was strong opposition to the parliament’s plan among members of the president’s own party This would undermine the claim that the action was courageous, but it would not address whether the decision was in the best interest of the nation or not. (E) it depends on the unwarranted assumption that any plan proposed by a parliament will necessarily serve only narrow partisan interests Again, so what? Even if this was true, it would not address whether the decision was good or not.

rajatyadav1994 · Answer

I selected E as the answer, but I realise I made a few errors. I would like an endorsement for my reasoning as to why this probably is not the answer:-

1. Argument core: Premise ( decision made with knowledge of fierce opposition and disapproval + All citizens who place nation's well-being over narrow political interests will applaud) = Conclusion (Rejecting plan for reform in BEST interest of the nation)

Choice E: If the assumption is " ANY plan proposed by a parliament will necessarily serve only narrow political interests", then the negated choice is that " Any plan proposed by a parliament will NOT necessarily serve only narrow political interests", i.e., few plans might serve non-partisan issues. So, if we are to place this between the premise and conclusion, this gives us an argument that all citizens who value the well-being of the nation over partisan interests, may not come to applaud this decision. In rejecting the proposal, the president clearly acted in the best interest of the nation.

Would choice E have worked if somewhere there existed a premise that rising above narrow political interests was crucial to deciding the nation's best interest, and citizens' perspective on such decisions was ALWAYS accurate?

I am trying to figure out why E was wrong, on account of it requiring multiple assumptions, and hence, the only assumption could not have been the one mentioned in the choice. Any help would be appreciated.

A_Nishith · Answer

Editorial’s Argument:
 Claim:  The president acted in the best interests of the nation by rejecting the electoral reform plan.
 Support for the claim:  The president made the decision despite knowing it would face opposition at home and disapproval abroad.
 Conclusion:  Citizens who prioritize the nation's well-being should applaud this decision.

Flaw in the reasoning: 
The editorial assumes that because the president’s decision required courage (facing opposition), it must have been a wise and good decision. However, the editorial fails to provide any evidence about whether the decision was wise or in the nation's best interest—it only discusses the courage it took to make it.

Now, let's examine the answer choices:
(A) it confuses a quality that is merely desirable in a political leader with a quality that is essential to effective political decision-making
This choice suggests that the editorial mistakes courage (a desirable trait) for wisdom (an essential trait in decision-making). While the argument emphasizes courage, this choice doesn't fully address the failure to provide evidence for wisdom in the decision.

(B) it fails to distinguish between evidence concerning the courage required to make a certain decision and evidence concerning the wisdom of making that decision
Correct.  The argument presents evidence about the courage involved in making the decision (facing opposition) but doesn't provide evidence about the wisdom or appropriateness of the decision itself. This is the core flaw in the editorial's reasoning.

(C) it ignores the likelihood that many citizens have no narrow partisan interest in the proposed election reform plan
This may be true, but it doesn’t directly address the central flaw in the reasoning, which is about the confusion between courage and wisdom.

(D) it overlooks the possibility that there was strong opposition to the parliament’s plan among members of the president’s own party
While this may introduce complexity to the political situation, it doesn't explain the editorial's error in reasoning regarding the president's decision.

(E) it depends on the unwarranted assumption that any plan proposed by a parliament will necessarily serve only narrow partisan interests
This addresses a potential bias but does not explain the flaw in the editorial's reasoning, which is about the justification of the president’s action based on courage.

Answer: (B)

VerbalBot · Answer

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

Editorial: In rejecting the plan proposed by parliament to reform the

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

Editorial: In rejecting the plan proposed by parliament to reform the

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