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

 It is currently 24 May 2019, 03:16

### 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

# If Shero wins the election, McGuinness will be appointed hea

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Senior Manager
Joined: 17 Sep 2013
Posts: 330
Concentration: Strategy, General Management
GMAT 1: 730 Q51 V38
WE: Analyst (Consulting)
If Shero wins the election, McGuinness will be appointed hea  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

Updated on: 24 Sep 2018, 07:57
14
15
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

59% (02:04) correct 41% (02:04) wrong based on 748 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

If Shero wins the election, McGuinness will be appointed head of the planning commission. But Stauning is more qualified to head it since he is an architect who has been on the planning commission for 15 years. Unless the polls are grossly inaccurate, Shero will win.

Which one of the following can be properly inferred from the information above?

(A) If the polls are grossly inaccurate, someone more qualified than McGuinness will be appointed head of the planning commission.

(B) McGuinness will be appointed head of the planning commission only if the polls are a good indication of how the election will turn out.

(C) Either Shero will win the election or Stauning will be appointed head of the planning commission.

(D) McGuinness is not an architect and has not been on the planning commission for 15 years or more.

(E) If the polls are a good indication of how the election will turn out, someone less qualified than Stauning will be appointed head of the planning commission.

OE to follow...Kindly Press Kudos if you like this question

(This question also appears in LSAT PrepTest 36, Section 1 #14, with only the names changed.)

_________________
Appreciate the efforts...KUDOS for all
Don't let an extra chromosome get you down..

Originally posted by JusTLucK04 on 21 May 2014, 23:17.
Last edited by GMATNinja on 24 Sep 2018, 07:57, edited 2 times in total.
Reformatted question
Manager
Joined: 27 Jul 2012
Posts: 98
Re: If Shero wins the election, McGuinness will be appointed hea  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 May 2014, 01:32
8
3
If Shero wins the election, McGuinness will be appointed head of the planning commission. But Stauning is more qualified to head it since he is an architect who has been on the planning commission for 15 years. Unless the polls are grossly inaccurate, Shero will win.

Which one of the following can be properly inferred from the information above?

(A) If the polls are grossly inaccurate, someone more qualified than McGuinness will be appointed head of the planning commission. if the polls are grossly inaccurate, we don't know what will happen. we just know that if the polls are grossly accurate, Shero will win

(B) McGuinness will be appointed head of the planning commission only if the polls are a good indication of how the election will turn out. in this option "only if " makes problem. because we know that if Shero wins,McGuinness will be appointed head of the planning commission.. but we don't know whether McGuinness will be appointed that position if the other person win the election

(C) Either Shero will win the election or Stauning will be appointed head of the planning commission. we just know that Stauning is more qualifies than McGuinness. we don't have any information about under what condition Stauning will be appointed head of the planning commission

(D) McGuinness is not an architect and has not been on the planning commission for 15 years or more. we don't have any info about the background of McGuinness

(E) If the polls are a good indication of how the election will turn out, someone less qualified than Stauning will be appointed head of the planning commission.
we know that if polls are a good indication of how the election will turn out-->Shero will win-->McGuinness will be appointed head of the planning commission and we know that McGuinness is less qualified than Stauning
##### General Discussion
Retired Moderator
Joined: 05 Sep 2010
Posts: 655
Re: If Shero wins the election, McGuinness will be appointed hea  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 May 2014, 01:44
E seems best : If the polls are a good indication of how the election will turn out, someone less qualified than Stauning will be appointed head of the planning commission.
Director
Status: Everyone is a leader. Just stop listening to others.
Joined: 22 Mar 2013
Posts: 749
Location: India
GPA: 3.51
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Re: If Shero wins the election, McGuinness will be appointed hea  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 May 2014, 01:52
Between B and E:
(B) McGuinness will be appointed head of the planning commission only if the polls are a good indication of how the election will turn out.
there is surety that if A happens B will happen, but argument do not say that B happens only if A happens. B can happen because of any other event as well and argument do not fortified occurrence.

(E) If the polls are a good indication of how the election will turn out, someone less qualified than Stauning will be appointed head of the planning commission.
If A happens, B (Mcguinness) will happen, and as per the statement McGuinness is less qualified.

Thus E is the best option.
_________________
Piyush K
-----------------------
Our greatest weakness lies in giving up. The most certain way to succeed is to try just one more time. ― Thomas A. Edison
Don't forget to press--> Kudos
My Articles: 1. WOULD: when to use? | 2. All GMATPrep RCs (New)
Tip: Before exam a week earlier don't forget to exhaust all gmatprep problems specially for "sentence correction".
Senior Manager
Joined: 28 Apr 2012
Posts: 275
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Technology
GMAT 1: 650 Q48 V31
GMAT 2: 770 Q50 V47
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Re: If Shero wins the election, McGuinness will be appointed hea  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 May 2014, 12:03
1
1
JusTLucK04 wrote:
If Shero wins the election, McGuinness will be appointed head of the planning commission. But Stauning is more qualified to head it since he is an architect who has been on the planning commission for 15 years. Unless the polls are grossly inaccurate, Shero will win.
Which one of the following can be properly inferred from the information
above?
(A) If the polls are grossly inaccurate, someone more qualified than McGuinness will be appointed head of the planning commission.
(B) McGuinness will be appointed head of the planning commission only if the polls are a good indication of how the election will turn out.
(C) Either Shero will win the election or Stauning will be appointed head of the planning commission.
(D) McGuinness is not an architect and has not been on the planning commission for 15 years or more.
(E) If the polls are a good indication of how the election will turn out, someone less qualified than Stauning will be appointed head of the planning commission.

OE to follow...Kindly Press Kudos if you like this question

This is like LSAT questions. If you know LSAT logic games, then you can do it in half a min.

1. If Shero Wins -> McGuinness (MG) appointed (if logic)
2. If Shere does not win -> Polls are inaccurate (unless logic)
3. Stauning(ST) is more qualified than MG

(A) If the polls are grossly inaccurate, someone more qualified than McGuinness will be appointed head of the planning commission.
Straight Out: If A then B cannot conclude if B then A. Since we don't have inaccurate pole result on If side of premises. (Affirming Conclusion Fallacy)

(B) McGuinness will be appointed head of the planning commission only if the polls are a good indication of how the election will turn out.
Flag the 'only if' . We don't know if MG could be appointed if anyone else wins.

(C) Either Shero will win the election or Stauning will be appointed head of the planning commission.
If shero does not win, then we cannot infer MG is not appointed (Denying the premise fallacy)

(D) McGuinness is not an architect and has not been on the planning commission for 15 years or more.
We have been told about qualification of MG, we only know he is less qualified than ST. MG could be an architect with 14 years of exp.

(E) If the polls are a good indication of how the election will turn out, someone less qualified than Stauning will be appointed head of the planning commission.
Correct. Contra positive of condition 2. If polls are accurate, shero will win. From condition 1. If Shero wins, MG will be appointed. from 3, MG is less qualified that ST.
_________________
"Appreciation is a wonderful thing. It makes what is excellent in others belong to us as well."
― Voltaire

Press Kudos, if I have helped.
Thanks!
Senior SC Moderator
Joined: 14 Nov 2016
Posts: 1334
Location: Malaysia
Re: If Shero wins the election, McGuinness will be appointed hea  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Apr 2017, 07:22
JusTLucK04 wrote:
If Shero wins the election, McGuinness will be appointed head of the planning commission. But Stauning is more qualified to head it since he is an architect who has been on the planning commission for 15 years. Unless the polls are grossly inaccurate, Shero will win.

Which one of the following can be properly inferred from the information above?

(A) If the polls are grossly inaccurate, someone more qualified than McGuinness will be appointed head of the planning commission.
(B) McGuinness will be appointed head of the planning commission only if the polls are a good indication of how the election will turn out.
(C) Either Shero will win the election or Stauning will be appointed head of the planning commission.
(D) McGuinness is not an architect and has not been on the planning commission for 15 years or more.
(E) If the polls are a good indication of how the election will turn out, someone less qualified than Stauning will be appointed head of the planning commission.

This question modify from LSAT. AnthonyRitz & VeritasPrepKarishma

If Slater wins the election, McGuinness will be appointed head of the planning commission. But Yerxes is more qualified to head it since she is an architect who has been on the planning commission for fifteen years. Unless the polls are grossly inaccurate, Slater will win.

Which one of the following can be properly inferred from the information above?

A. If the polls are grossly inaccurate, someone more qualified than McGuinness will be appointed head of the planning commission.
B. McGuinness will be appointed head of the planning commission only if the polls are a good indication of how the election will turn out.
C. Either Slater will win the election or Yerxes will be appointed head of the planning commission.
D. McGuinness is not an architect and had not been on the planning commission for fifteen years or more.
E. If the polls are a good indication of how the election will turn out, someone less qualified than Yerxes will be appointed head of the planning commission.

GMATNinja & GMATNinjaTwo, What is the logic to resolve this question? I get stuck here between B & E.
_________________
"Be challenged at EVERY MOMENT."

“Strength doesn’t come from what you can do. It comes from overcoming the things you once thought you couldn’t.”

"Each stage of the journey is crucial to attaining new heights of knowledge."

GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Status: GMAT and GRE tutor
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 2488
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
Re: If Shero wins the election, McGuinness will be appointed hea  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Apr 2017, 08:16
3
Top Contributor
This is a variation on the "logic reversal" sort of trap -- and it's particularly common on the LSAT.

Suppose that this is true:

• Fact #1: If X occurs, then Y will occur.

That doesn't necessarily mean that this will be true:

• If X does NOT occur, then Y will NOT occur.

Based on Fact #1, we know what will happen if X does occur -- but we have no information about what will happen if X does NOT occur.

Here, have a silly example:

• Fact: If Mike eats a puffer fish while surfing, he will get sick.
• "Reversed" fact: If Mike does NOT eat a puffer fish while surfing, he will NOT get sick. --> this may or may not be true; perhaps Mike will get sick from something else

Now, this Veritas question isn't phrased in quite the same way, but the logical trap in (B) is similar:

Quote:
If Shero wins the election, McGuinness will be appointed head of the planning commission... Unless the polls are grossly inaccurate, Shero will win.

And here's (B) again:

Quote:
(B) McGuinness will be appointed head of the planning commission only if the polls are a good indication of how the election will turn out.

Yes, it's true that "if the polls are a good indication of how the election will turn out", McGuinness will be appointed head of the planning commission. But the key here is the "only if." Based on the passage, we don't know what would happen if the polls are NOT accurate. Presumably, Shero wouldn't win. But who would be appointed the head of the planning commission? We have no idea. It's possible that McGuinness (mmm... Guinness) would still be appointed -- and that's why B is wrong.

I hope this helps!
_________________
GMAT Club Verbal Expert | GMAT/GRE tutor @ www.gmatninja.com (Now hiring!) | Instagram | Food blog | Notoriously bad at PMs

Beginners' guides to GMAT verbal
Reading Comprehension | Critical Reasoning | Sentence Correction

Series 1: Fundamentals of SC & CR | Series 2: Developing a Winning GMAT Mindset

SC & CR Questions of the Day (QOTDs), featuring expert explanations
All QOTDs | Subscribe via email | RSS

Hit the request verbal experts' reply button -- and please be specific about your question. Feel free to tag @GMATNinja in your post. Priority is always given to official GMAT questions.

Sentence Correction articles & resources
How to go from great (760) to incredible (780) on GMAT SC | That "-ing" Word Probably Isn't a Verb | That "-ed" Word Might Not Be a Verb, Either | No-BS Guide to GMAT Idioms | "Being" is not the enemy | WTF is "that" doing in my sentence?

Reading Comprehension, Critical Reasoning, and other articles & resources
All GMAT Ninja articles on GMAT Club | Using LSAT for GMAT CR & RC |7 reasons why your actual GMAT scores don't match your practice test scores | How to get 4 additional "fake" GMAT Prep tests for \$29.99 | Time management on verbal
IIMA, IIMC School Moderator
Joined: 04 Sep 2016
Posts: 1339
Location: India
WE: Engineering (Other)
Re: If Shero wins the election, McGuinness will be appointed hea  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 May 2017, 22:40
Hi Experts,
I am having a tough time implementing necessary vs sufficient conditions to actual OG Qs:
My basics:
sufficient will lead to necessary but necessary may not always result in sufficient condition to occur.
negating necessary will result in sufficient condition not have occurred
Also usual structure is as below:
If (sufficient condition), then (necessary condition)
Unless (necessary condition) sufficient condition follows.

Based on this let me present argument understanding and my inferences:
First line:
Sufficient (S wins the election) -> Necessary (MG will be appointed as head)
My inference:
(Negating necessary) MG will not be appointed as head -> (negating sufficient) will result in loss of election for S

Unless ... can be paraphrased as S will win only if polls are inaccurate.
My inference:
If Shero will win -> polls are grossly inaccurate.

Let me know of my inferences are correct?
_________________
It's the journey that brings us happiness not the destination.

Feeling stressed, you are not alone!!
Board of Directors
Status: Stepping into my 10 years long dream
Joined: 18 Jul 2015
Posts: 3631
Re: If Shero wins the election, McGuinness will be appointed hea  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 May 2017, 23:21
2
1
Hi Experts,
I am having a tough time implementing necessary vs sufficient conditions to actual OG Qs:
My basics:
sufficient will lead to necessary but necessary may not always result in sufficient condition to occur.
negating necessary will result in sufficient condition not have occurred
Also usual structure is as below:
If (sufficient condition), then (necessary condition)
Unless (necessary condition) sufficient condition follows.

Based on this let me present argument understanding and my inferences:
First line:
Sufficient (S wins the election) -> Necessary (MG will be appointed as head)
My inference:
(Negating necessary) MG will not be appointed as head -> (negating sufficient) will result in loss of election for S

Unless ... can be paraphrased as S will win only if polls are inaccurate.
My inference:
If Shero will win -> polls are grossly inaccurate.

Let me know of my inferences are correct?

This question is purely based on propositional logic.

1. If P, then Q implies ~Q --> ~P
2. P only if Q implies If P, then Q.
3. P unless Q implies ~Q --> P

Now, look at the question statement wise

If Shero wins the election, McGuinness will be appointed head of the planning commission. {If P(wins), then Q(McGuinness head)} => ~Q (McGuinness Not head) --> ~P(Loss). -- (1)

But Stauning is more qualified to head it since he is an architect who has been on the planning commission for 15 years. {If X(Architect and on PC for 15 years), then Y(More Qualified)} => ~Y(Not More Qualified) --> ~X (Not of (architect and on PC for 15 years)) -- (2)

Unless the polls are grossly inaccurate, Shero will win. { P(Win), Unless M(Polls inaccurate) } => ~M (Polls accurate) --> P(Win) --(3)

Now, looking at these let's move on to the options:

(A) If the polls are grossly inaccurate, someone more qualified than McGuinness will be appointed head of the planning commission.

It is saying If M (polls inaccurate), ~Q(McGuinness not head).

We know what would happen if polls are inaccurate but we don't know what would happen if polls are accurate. Look at statements (1),(2) and (3) above for the reason. Hence, incorrect.

(B) McGuinness will be appointed head of the planning commission only if the polls are a good indication of how the election will turn out.

It is saying Q(head) only if ~M(Polls accurate). We know that this can be deduced to If Q(head), then ~M(Polls are accurate).

We know that if Polls are accurate, then he will be the head but not vice versa. Hence, incorrect.

(C) Either Shero will win the election or Stauning will be appointed head of the planning commission.

No such relation can be deduced out of the statements we have.

(D) McGuinness is not an architect and has not been on the planning commission for 15 years or more.

Again, It may happen that he is an architect but not on planning commision or the other way round.

(E) If the polls are a good indication of how the election will turn out, someone less qualified than Stauning will be appointed head of the planning commission.

CORRECT.

It is saying If ~M (Polls accurate) --> P (win) and if P(Win) --> Q(head).

We also know that Q(head) is less qualified. Hence, we can deduce this relation. Hence, an inference.

Let me know in case of any doubt.
_________________
My GMAT Story: From V21 to V40
My MBA Journey: My 10 years long MBA Dream
My Secret Hacks: Best way to use GMATClub | Importance of an Error Log!
Verbal Resources: All SC Resources at one place | All CR Resources at one place

GMAT Club Inbuilt Error Log Functionality - View More.
New Visa Forum - Ask all your Visa Related Questions - here.
New! Best Reply Functionality on GMAT Club!
Find a bug in the new email templates and get rewarded with 2 weeks of GMATClub Tests for free
Check our new About Us Page here.
IIMA, IIMC School Moderator
Joined: 04 Sep 2016
Posts: 1339
Location: India
WE: Engineering (Other)
Re: If Shero wins the election, McGuinness will be appointed hea  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 May 2017, 02:46
[quote But Stauning is more qualified to head it since he is an architect who has been on the planning commission for 15 years. {If X(Architect and on PC for 15 years), then Y(More Qualified)} => ~Y(Not More Qualified) --> ~X (Not of (architect and on PC for 15 years)) -- (2)

Unless the polls are grossly inaccurate, Shero will win. { P(Win), Unless M(Polls inaccurate) } => ~M (Polls accurate) --> P(Win) --(3)

.[/quote]

Hi Abhimahna,

Are propositional and conditional logic same? Since I am using powerscore I want to make sure you and me are on same page.
Furthermore, symbol ~ means negation, correct ? if A ->B is valid (where A is sufficient and B is necessary condition)
then only negated B -> negated A is valid inference.

Can you explain why did you change statement starting with But S is more ... to conditional logic?

My interpretation of unless is different, let me know if I am incorrect:

Unless (necessary statement), sufficient statement follows. which translates in our case to if polls are inaccurate (negated necessary condition) - > S will not win
we negate and change order of necessary and sufficient conditions to make valid inference.

Let me know my gaps in understanding.
_________________
It's the journey that brings us happiness not the destination.

Feeling stressed, you are not alone!!
Board of Directors
Status: Stepping into my 10 years long dream
Joined: 18 Jul 2015
Posts: 3631
Re: If Shero wins the election, McGuinness will be appointed hea  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 May 2017, 10:04
1
Hi Abhimahna,

Are propositional and conditional logic same? Since I am using powerscore I want to make sure you and me are on same page.
Furthermore, symbol ~ means negation, correct ? if A ->B is valid (where A is sufficient and B is necessary condition)
then only negated B -> negated A is valid inference.

Can you explain why did you change statement starting with But S is more ... to conditional logic?

My interpretation of unless is different, let me know if I am incorrect:

Unless (necessary statement), sufficient statement follows. which translates in our case to if polls are inaccurate (negated necessary condition) - > S will not win
we negate and change order of necessary and sufficient conditions to make valid inference.

Let me know my gaps in understanding.

A proposition of the form “if p then q” or “p implies q”, represented “p → q” is called a conditional proposition. I used the generic term that is used for other cases also.

Yes, symbol ~ means negation.

I found that statement of the propositional logic form, so I did that. You never know when I need that in my Options. This is how I decode my question before attacking the options.

I am not sure of your Unless interpretation. According to me, Q, unless P means ~P ->Q.

I hope that makes sense.
_________________
My GMAT Story: From V21 to V40
My MBA Journey: My 10 years long MBA Dream
My Secret Hacks: Best way to use GMATClub | Importance of an Error Log!
Verbal Resources: All SC Resources at one place | All CR Resources at one place

GMAT Club Inbuilt Error Log Functionality - View More.
New Visa Forum - Ask all your Visa Related Questions - here.
New! Best Reply Functionality on GMAT Club!
Find a bug in the new email templates and get rewarded with 2 weeks of GMATClub Tests for free
Check our new About Us Page here.
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Status: GMAT and GRE tutor
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 2488
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
Re: If Shero wins the election, McGuinness will be appointed hea  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Jun 2017, 12:01
And if anybody wants even more on necessary vs. sufficient conditions, here's a nice thread on the topic: https://gmatclub.com/forum/a-sufficient ... 50740.html.

It's a common issue, so we'll also work on a Topic of the Week on this.

And nice work, abhimahna!
_________________
GMAT Club Verbal Expert | GMAT/GRE tutor @ www.gmatninja.com (Now hiring!) | Instagram | Food blog | Notoriously bad at PMs

Beginners' guides to GMAT verbal
Reading Comprehension | Critical Reasoning | Sentence Correction

Series 1: Fundamentals of SC & CR | Series 2: Developing a Winning GMAT Mindset

SC & CR Questions of the Day (QOTDs), featuring expert explanations
All QOTDs | Subscribe via email | RSS

Hit the request verbal experts' reply button -- and please be specific about your question. Feel free to tag @GMATNinja in your post. Priority is always given to official GMAT questions.

Sentence Correction articles & resources
How to go from great (760) to incredible (780) on GMAT SC | That "-ing" Word Probably Isn't a Verb | That "-ed" Word Might Not Be a Verb, Either | No-BS Guide to GMAT Idioms | "Being" is not the enemy | WTF is "that" doing in my sentence?

Reading Comprehension, Critical Reasoning, and other articles & resources
All GMAT Ninja articles on GMAT Club | Using LSAT for GMAT CR & RC |7 reasons why your actual GMAT scores don't match your practice test scores | How to get 4 additional "fake" GMAT Prep tests for \$29.99 | Time management on verbal
IIMA, IIMC School Moderator
Joined: 04 Sep 2016
Posts: 1339
Location: India
WE: Engineering (Other)
Re: If Shero wins the election, McGuinness will be appointed hea  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Jun 2017, 17:58
GMATNinja wrote:
And if anybody wants even more on necessary vs. sufficient conditions, here's a nice thread on the topic: https://gmatclub.com/forum/a-sufficient ... 50740.html.

It's a common issue, so we'll also work on a Topic of the Week on this.

And nice work, abhimahna!

Hi Gmatninja,

Is my interpretation of unless correct?
_________________
It's the journey that brings us happiness not the destination.

Feeling stressed, you are not alone!!
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Status: GMAT and GRE tutor
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 2488
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
Re: If Shero wins the election, McGuinness will be appointed hea  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Jun 2017, 18:07
Hi Gmatninja,

Is my interpretation of unless correct?

Quote:
Unless (necessary statement), sufficient statement follows. which translates in our case to if polls are inaccurate (negated necessary condition) - > S will not win
we negate and change order of necessary and sufficient conditions to make valid inference.

I'd be careful here because even if the polls are inaccurate, that does not necessarily mean that S will not win. If the polls are accurate, S will definitely win. If the polls are grossly inaccurate, we don't know if S will win. Even if the polls are grossly inaccurate, S could still win.

In other words, that the polls are not grossly inaccurate is a necessary condition.

I hope this helps!
_________________
GMAT Club Verbal Expert | GMAT/GRE tutor @ www.gmatninja.com (Now hiring!) | Instagram | Food blog | Notoriously bad at PMs

Beginners' guides to GMAT verbal
Reading Comprehension | Critical Reasoning | Sentence Correction

Series 1: Fundamentals of SC & CR | Series 2: Developing a Winning GMAT Mindset

SC & CR Questions of the Day (QOTDs), featuring expert explanations
All QOTDs | Subscribe via email | RSS

Hit the request verbal experts' reply button -- and please be specific about your question. Feel free to tag @GMATNinja in your post. Priority is always given to official GMAT questions.

Sentence Correction articles & resources
How to go from great (760) to incredible (780) on GMAT SC | That "-ing" Word Probably Isn't a Verb | That "-ed" Word Might Not Be a Verb, Either | No-BS Guide to GMAT Idioms | "Being" is not the enemy | WTF is "that" doing in my sentence?

Reading Comprehension, Critical Reasoning, and other articles & resources
All GMAT Ninja articles on GMAT Club | Using LSAT for GMAT CR & RC |7 reasons why your actual GMAT scores don't match your practice test scores | How to get 4 additional "fake" GMAT Prep tests for \$29.99 | Time management on verbal
IIMA, IIMC School Moderator
Joined: 04 Sep 2016
Posts: 1339
Location: India
WE: Engineering (Other)
Re: If Shero wins the election, McGuinness will be appointed hea  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Jun 2017, 00:01
1
GMATNinja wrote:
Hi Gmatninja,

Is my interpretation of unless correct?

Quote:
Unless (necessary statement), sufficient statement follows. which translates in our case to if polls are inaccurate (negated necessary condition) - > S will not win
we negate and change order of necessary and sufficient conditions to make valid inference.

I'd be careful here because even if the polls are inaccurate, that does not necessarily mean that S will not win. If the polls are accurate, S will definitely win. If the polls are grossly inaccurate, we don't know if S will win. Even if the polls are grossly inaccurate, S could still win.

In other words, that the polls are not grossly inaccurate is a necessary condition.

I hope this helps!

Hi Gmatninja,
You almost brought meaning aspect of SC in your explanation. Thanks for your explanation !!
WR,
Arpit
_________________
It's the journey that brings us happiness not the destination.

Feeling stressed, you are not alone!!
Manager
Joined: 05 Dec 2016
Posts: 111
Re: If Shero wins the election, McGuinness will be appointed hea  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

11 May 2018, 04:22
OFFICIAL SOLUTION

This question provides an excellent illustration of the “must be true” inference standard. While the facts do show that Shero, if elected, will appoint a less-qualified planning commissioner, McGuinness, there is nothing explicit that says that Stauning would even be considered under any other regime. You may think that Shero is the only person who would appoint McGuinness, but there is nothing explicit that says that anyone else would even be considered. The only thing we know here is that a Shero win means that McGuinness, a lesser qualified planning commissioner than Stauning, will be appointed. So while choices like A (if Shero loses, a better commissioner will be appointed) and B (Shero is McGuinness’s only hope to get the job) may seem probable, they are not necessarily true.

On a question like this, you can eliminate incorrect answer choices by proposing hypotheticals that are consistent with the facts but undermine the answer choice. To eliminate A, B, and C here the hypothetical “for some reason, anyone who wins will select McGuinness” undercuts all of those answer choices. Only E is necessarily true.
_________________
lets all unite to reach our target together
Intern
Joined: 22 Apr 2018
Posts: 4
Schools: Wharton '21 (I)
Re: If Shero wins the election, McGuinness will be appointed hea  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Sep 2018, 10:34
GMATNinja: Why is "D" wrong?

The reasoning given for Stauning to be more qualified than McGuinness is that Stauning is an architect, who has been on the planning commission for 15 years.
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Status: GMAT and GRE tutor
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 2488
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
Re: If Shero wins the election, McGuinness will be appointed hea  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Sep 2018, 07:56
HarshitJuneja wrote:
GMATNinja: Why is "D" wrong?

The reasoning given for Stauning to be more qualified than McGuinness is that Stauning is an architect, who has been on the planning commission for 15 years.

Remember, the question asks: Which one of the following can be properly inferred from the information above?

Here's the information provided:

Quote:
If Shero wins the election, McGuinness will be appointed head of the planning commission. But Stauning is more qualified to head it since he is an architect who has been on the planning commission for 15 years. Unless the polls are grossly inaccurate, Shero will win.

And here's choice (D) again:

Quote:
(D) McGuinness is not an architect and has not been on the planning commission for 15 years or more.

We can only choose (D) if we're able to infer that:

• McGuinness is not an architect, AND
• McGuinness has not been on the planning commission for 15 years or more.

The problem here is that we have absolutely no information about McGuinness. We definitely don't have the information to infer either, let alone both, of these specific statements.

• What if McGuinness is an architect, but has never been on the planning commission?
• What if McGuinness is not an architect, but has been on the planning commission for 20 years?
• What if McGuinness is an architect, but has been on the planning commission for 13 years?

None of these scenarios would contradict the author's statement about Stauning's qualifications. But without more explicit information from the author about McGuinness, we cannot infer that McGuiness is not an architect and has not been on the planning commission for 15 years or more. That's why we eliminate (D).

I hope this helps!
_________________
GMAT Club Verbal Expert | GMAT/GRE tutor @ www.gmatninja.com (Now hiring!) | Instagram | Food blog | Notoriously bad at PMs

Beginners' guides to GMAT verbal
Reading Comprehension | Critical Reasoning | Sentence Correction

Series 1: Fundamentals of SC & CR | Series 2: Developing a Winning GMAT Mindset

SC & CR Questions of the Day (QOTDs), featuring expert explanations
All QOTDs | Subscribe via email | RSS

Hit the request verbal experts' reply button -- and please be specific about your question. Feel free to tag @GMATNinja in your post. Priority is always given to official GMAT questions.

Sentence Correction articles & resources
How to go from great (760) to incredible (780) on GMAT SC | That "-ing" Word Probably Isn't a Verb | That "-ed" Word Might Not Be a Verb, Either | No-BS Guide to GMAT Idioms | "Being" is not the enemy | WTF is "that" doing in my sentence?

Reading Comprehension, Critical Reasoning, and other articles & resources
All GMAT Ninja articles on GMAT Club | Using LSAT for GMAT CR & RC |7 reasons why your actual GMAT scores don't match your practice test scores | How to get 4 additional "fake" GMAT Prep tests for \$29.99 | Time management on verbal
Re: If Shero wins the election, McGuinness will be appointed hea   [#permalink] 24 Sep 2018, 07:56
Display posts from previous: Sort by