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.

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

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!!

warrior1991 · Answer

GMATNinja   AndrewN   generis   BillyZ   AjiteshArun

Please help with B and D.

My reasoning.

If we use the polling data to predict the participation rates for the upcoming elections in Lakeview's precinct, we will be able to tell whether the increased participation is because of the busing campaign. 
If the participation rate is less, the busing campaign did not help.
If it is high, the busing campaign did help.

Although the other sub divisions are demographically similar to Lakeview, what happens in other sub divisions will not guarantee the same in Lakeview.
Suppose in the other sub divisions the participation was huge, but how does it impacts Lakeview?? It may or may not be possible that voter participation increased in Lakeview.

Please help!

AndrewN · Answer

Hello,  warrior1991 . I think I may have told you this before, but it looks to me as if you have applied one-step-removed thinking, and that often leads to wayward conclusions. Regarding (B), making a prediction about participation rates based on polling data will only reveal what the passage already tells us, namely that there was a  state-wide boom in voter registration and participation . We get no insight into what might have caused that boom, whether the new busing campaign proved successful or had a negligible effect.

Although it is true in (D) that a precinct-to-precinct comparison might not necessarily tell us whether the Lakeview busing campaign led directly to increased voter registration and participation, notice that we are comparing an  increase  to other increases in the very area we are examining, and, further, that the populations within the comparison are similar. In fact, the only discernible difference between these other precincts and Lakeview appears to be this busing campaign. Thus, if the Lakeview data show any kind of significant variance from the other data, it would be reasonable to conclude that the unique factor—the busing campaign—did indeed cause such a difference. This situation is more or less like an experimental drug trial, and in this case, the other precincts would serve as the control group while Lakeview would be the group taking the drug.

I hope that makes sense. Thank you for thinking to ask me.

- Andrew

DeadScout · Answer

What if there are other factors that impacted the voters' registration and participation in the other precincts demographically similar to Lakeview's?

guddo · Answer

I’d say that is possible, but it does not make (D) useless.  The comparison does not need to eliminate every possible outside factor, it only needs to help isolate the effect of the busing campaign.

Using demographically similar precincts without busing gives us a reasonable control group. If those precincts had similar increases, busing looks less important; if Lakeview increased much more, busing looks more important.

Other unknown factors could still interfere , but (D) is still the most useful test among the choices.

KarishmaB · Answer

Yes, it is possible but look at the author's intent. He uses the words "demographically similar." This means he wants to say that they are comparable. This is similar to a study in which you have a control group. You have two similar groups and you introduce the busing campaign in one only. If the increase happens only in that group that you know that the busing campaign may have had a role to play. 
Using (D), you cannot establish that the busing campaign was responsible but it makes it more likely that it was. So (D) is the most useful to evaluate. All other options are not useful to evaluate at all so (D) is the only choice.

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