Following a state-wide boom in voter registration and participation

Question

Following a state-wide boom in voter registration and participation, Lakeview's election board claimed that the increased participation in its precinct resulted from the new busing campaign that brought many voters to their neighborhood polling station on Election Day.

Which of the following, if it could be carried out, would be most useful in an  evaluation  of Lakeview's assessment of the causes of the increased voter participation in its precinct?

(A) Determining the average increase in voter participation in each neighborhood of Lakeview.

(B) Using polling data to predict the participation rates for the upcoming election in Lakeview's precinct.

(C) Comparing the total number of voters participating when the busing campaign brought them to their neighborhood polling station to the total number of voters participating before the busing campaign.

(D) Comparing the increase in voter participation in Lakeview to the increase in participation in precincts demographically similar to Lakeview that did not implement busing campaigns.

(E) Comparing the long-term impact of the busing campaign on Lakeview's voter registration patterns with the short-term impact of the busing campaign on Lakeview's voter participation.

Correct Answer: D

The comparison suggested in D would be useful in evaluating Lakeview's assessment of the causes of the increase in its voter participation. If the increase in voting is as great in precincts that are, except for the existence of busing campaigns, demographically similar to Lakeview, then the conclusion is undermined. However, if the increase in participation is not as great in such precincts as in Lakeview, the election board's claim is supported. Thus, choice D is the best answer.

Choices A and B are both inappropriate because they concern only the rates of participation, and do not assess a hypothesis of the causes of participation.

Choices C and E suggest comparisons that would not assess the election board's claim about this election.

Rather, choices C and E suggest comparisons of separate elections within Lakeview, where factors other than the busing campaign may cause different rates of participation.

KarishmaB · Accepted Answer

The state has seen a boom in voter registration and participation.
Lakeview, a precinct, experienced an increased participation.
Lakeview's election board claimed it is because of the busing campaign.

We need to evaluate this claim - whether busing campaign played a role.

(A) Determining the average increase in voter participation in each neighborhood of Lakeview.

Dividing Lakeview into neighbourhoods and comparing those will not help evaluate if busing campaign helped. We know that busing campaign was run across the precinct to bring people to their neighbourhood polling station.

(B) Using polling data to predict the participation rates for the upcoming election in Lakeview's precinct.

Any prediction will not help in arriving at the reason.

(C) Comparing the total number of voters participating when the busing campaign brought them to their neighborhood polling station to the total number of voters participating before the busing campaign.

The most tricky one - we want to compare numbers before and after the busing campaign. Sure. But how does that help? We already know that "after" numbers are greater than "before" numbers. The argument says "increased numbers in Lakeview". Say I find that participation was 50% before and is 60% now. How does this tell me whether the busing campaign helped or something else? There has been a state wide boom in numbers and in Lakeview too.

(D) Comparing the increase in voter participation in Lakeview to the increase in participation in precincts demographically similar to Lakeview that did not implement busing campaigns.

Now this makes sense. When the comparison is with "similar units", it is often relevant. Comparing with demographically similar precincts, if we see that other precincts have seen a similar increase too without the busing campaign, it is possible that a second factor is causing increase everywhere. If other similar precincts which had no busing campaign did not see an increase, it increases the probability that busing campaign helped in increasing participation.

(E) Comparing the long-term impact of the busing campaign on Lakeview's voter registration patterns with the short-term impact of the busing campaign on Lakeview's voter participation.

Irrelevant.

Answer (D)

WaterFlowsUp · Answer

First of all, we know there was "a state-wide boom in voter registration and participation." We don't get any info about this, but SOMETHING caused a big increase throughout the state. Now, Lakeview said its huge increase was primarily due not to this SOMETHING (whatever it was) but to their busing program. Are job is to evaluate --- did buses really make the big difference in Lakeview? Or did the same SOMETHING that affected the rest of the state also affect Lakeview, and then, the highly motivated voters just happened to get on buses to get where they wanted to go? That's what we need to decide.

C) Comparing the total number of voters participating when the busing campaign brought them to their neighborhood polling station to the total number of voters participating before the busing campaign. 
Well, this would tell us that there was an increase (which we know already), but it would do less to elucidate the reason for the increase. If the busing campaign and the statewide surge in voters happened around the same time (which the argument seems to suggest), then if the increase happened right then, we wouldn't know to which cause to attribute it. Knowing this would not necessarily help us at all. This is not correct.

D) Comparing the increase in voter participation in Lakeview to the increase in participation in precincts demographically similar to Lakeview that did not implement busing campaigns. 
This is very helpful. Apparently, every town in the state saw an increase in voters, due to the statewide SOMETHING. If Lakeview increased no more than any other town, it wouldn't make sense to give Lakeview's increase a totally different explanation; instead, what caused everyplace else to increase also caused Lakeview to increase. On the other hand, if Lakeview had an increase that was considerably larger than comparable towns, that would call for an explanation that was unique to Lakeview: i.e. the busing campaign. This would be a crucial set of facts to determine. This is the correct answer to the question.

adg142000 · Answer

Went for D. got a little confused with c and d but chose d as c states the same thing stated in premise.

suntwin · Answer

Imo c
Before the busing campaign stats wi directly tell us how the busing campaign helped in increased participation.

Option D lacks the direct impact

OA please

Sent from my GT-N7105 using Tapatalk 2

manugmat123 · Answer

The OE (Veritas Prep)

Correct Answer: D

The comparison suggested in D would be useful in evaluating Lakeview's assessment of the causes of the increase in its voter participation. If the increase in voting is as great in precincts that are, except for the existence of busing campaigns, demographically similar to Lakeview, then the conclusion is undermined. However, if the increase in participation is not as great in such precincts as in Lakeview, the election board's claim is supported. Thus, choice D is the best answer. Choices A and B are both inappropriate because they concern only the rates of participation, and do not assess a hypothesis of the causes of participation. Choices C and E suggest comparisons that would not assess the election board's claim about this election. Rather, choices C and E suggest comparisons of separate elections within Lakeview, where factors other than the busing campaign may cause different rates of participation.

But I'm still not convinced as to why C is incorrect.

suntwin · Answer

Actualy after reading d again it does make sense.
It directly talks about increased participation rather than total number as in option C.
Moreover it also covers the affect of excluding busing campaigns which was the basic premise I chose C in must place.

I don't think C is wrong but D is better

Sent from my GT-N7105 using Tapatalk 2

gauravkaushik8591 · Answer

I think A suits the best. And I can even explain that.

Which of the following, if it could be carried out, would be most useful in an evaluation of Lakeview's  assessment of the causes  of the increased voter participation in its precinct?

Isn't option A doing it the best?

mejia401 · Answer

If had elected option A, the question would have been: "which...would be most useful in an evaluation of Lakeview's  assessment of the effects  of the increased voter participation in its precincts.?

Clearly, this is a causal problem and the evaluate question stem requires us to find the answer that is most apt to support or weaken the conclusion.

A) Determining the average increase in voter participation in each neighborhood of Lakeview.  An average increasing by a lot or just some indicates little about the busing campaign. For example, what if one precinct increased by 1000 percent while another precinct increased by 1/2 percent? That doesn't explain much, but begs the question - what in fact brought the increase in voters?

D) Comparing the increase in voter participation in Lakeview to the increase in participation in precincts demographically similar to Lakeview that did not implement busing campaigns.
 Comparing precinct with buses and comparing precinct without buses is a purer choice. If the precinct without buses brought as many voters as the precinct with buses, then the busing campaign wasn't the cause in the increase of voters. Perhaps it was the candidate himself or herself.

jlgdr · Answer

Could anyone please elaborate why C is incorrect here? Thanks! Kudos rain! Cheers J

tusharGupta1 · Answer

Hi Jgldr

My line of reasoning is : Option C only gives the difference the busing campaign made in terms of numbers but did not give any reason (cause) as to why it increased. However, option D gives the reason by comparing it with other similar setting.

vards · Answer

hello, what if the facilities in other demographically similar city are hopeless,or what if their politicians are hopeless or that city is under terror threat..there are many excuses for the people not voting although being demographically similar..i agree with ua explanation about C but couldnt understand y D is rite.. please clarify whether m thinking in right direction.. thankx

kishgau · Answer

Question stem - 
Which of the following, if it could be carried out, would be most useful in an evaluation of Lakeview's  assessment of the causes  of the increased voter participation in its precinct?
C - just a comparison of numbers ( with bus or without bus) won't help much to assess the cause 
D - if the participation rate in precincts demographically similar to Lakeview that did not implement busing campaigns is higher, the bus campaigned failed. If lower, the campaign was successful and if equal, the campaign was useless.
D helps to "assess the causes" of the increased participation.

samusa · Answer

This one is not so easy!! On re-reading the argument , it becomes clear that there has been a STATE WIDE BOOM in voter registration and participation. However, the Lakeview's election board thinks that the INCREASED participation and registration has been CAUSED by the BUSING campaign. Two things happened in Lakeview- STATEWIDE BOOM (General trend all over ) +BUSING, still the election board thinks that BUSING was the cause . The difference between OTHER STATES and LAKEVIEW is the BUSING campaign. D makes the comparison with other states and will be useful in knowing was the busing campaign really the cause OR the increased participation was result of a GNERAL TREND -STATEWIDE BOOM. Hope the above helps!! I DONOT MIND KUODS!! :-D

Nevernevergiveup · Answer

Following a state-wide boom in voter registration and participation, Lakeview's election board claimed that the increased participation in its precinct resulted from the new busing campaign that brought many voters to their neighborhood polling station on Election Day.

Which of the following, if it could be carried out, would be most useful in an  evaluation  of Lakeview's assessment of the causes of the increased voter participation in its precinct?

A. Determining the average increase in voter participation in each neighborhood of Lakeview. ............ This helps to analyse the result not cause.

B. Using polling data to predict the participation rates for the upcoming election in Lakeview's precinct. .......... future prediction can help evaluate the election happened in past.

C. Comparing the total number of voters participating when the busing campaign brought them to their neighborhood polling station to the total number of voters participating before the busing campaign ............ .this can help us but this can be similar to A. Contains info reg data but not the cause.

D. Comparing the increase in voter participation in Lakeview to the increase in participation in precincts demographically similar to Lakeview that did not implement busing campaigns................. Looks like we cannot apply scenario of other place to Lakeview. The conditions and circumstances can be different. but this is the only option which speaks sth related to the cause.

E. Comparing the long-term impact of the busing campaign on Lakeview's voter registration patterns with the short-term impact of the busing campaign on Lakeview's voter participation. OFS

bluetrain · Answer

That`s right

"a state-wide boom in voter registration and participation." is the clue for eliminating C.

Thanks

zvazviri · Answer

C only tells you whether there was an increase in voter participation, or rather the magnitude of the increase. C doesn't tell you what caused the increase in voter participation. Knowing the magnitude of the increase doesn't help us in evaluating the claim that the busing campaign caused the increase. It doesn't eliminate possible correlation without causation.

D however does that.

Kudos if you like the answer.

assaad · Answer

in this argument , the choice is between C and D , all the other answer choices can be ruled out for their irrelevance to the stem.
for option C we are comparing 2 elections (the actual and the previous one), however we don't know any of the circumstances between the 2 periods (conditions affecting the election other than the bus campaign,demographically etc..)
however ,in option D it is an apple to apple comparison between the 2 precincts in term of demographic population
that's why option D is more accurate

dcummins · Answer

The confusion with C is in its wording and nothing else.

People seem to say "comparing the total number of voters" = total state wide votes.

Logically you could make a similar inference that the total number of voters refers to the total number of voters in Lakeview's precinct as it refers to a polling station in a place in which the busing campaign occurs.

If C said "comparing the total number of state-wide voters participating...." then it would be abundantly clear why it is incorrect.

Prasannathawait · Answer

Nice explanation. I was caught in the trap. Will beware. Thanks.

Following a state-wide boom in voter registration and participation

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

Following a state-wide boom in voter registration and participation

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