In Country X's last election, the Reform Party beat its main opponent,

Question

In Country X's last election, the Reform Party beat its main opponent, the Conservative Party, although pollsters, employing in-person interviews shortly before the vote, had projected a Conservative Party victory. Afterwards, the pollsters determined that, unlike Conservative Party supporters, Reform Party supporters were less likely to express their party preference during in-person interviews than they were during telephone interviews. Therefore, using only telephone interviews instead would likely result in more accurate projections for the next election.

Which of the following statements, if true, would most support the argument in the passage?

A. The number of voters in Country X's next election will be significantly larger than the number of voters in the last election.
B. The Conservative Party will win the next election.
C. For each person interviewed in telephone polls before the next election, pollsters will be able to reasonably determine the likelihood of that person voting.
D. People who expressed no party preference during the in-person interviews shortly before Country X's last election did not outnumber the people who expressed a preference for the Conservative Party.
E. In the next election, pollsters will be able to conduct more in-person interviews than telephone interviews.

CR52061.01
OG2020 NEW QUESTION

VeritasPrepBrian · Accepted Answer

One interesting lesson from choice (C) here is that it fits a particular type of correct Strengthen answer: the "removes a potential flaw" answer.

If you look what's going on in the argument, telephone polls seem to have one particular advantage over in-person polls: Reform voters are more likely to express their true feelings in telephone interviews. So the conclusion is to use only telephone polls. But we really only have that one data point on telephone polls: there could be all kinds of problems with them (does an appropriate cross-section of the electorate answer their phones? do Conservative voters give *their* true feelings in them?)

(C) proposes another new flaw (what if people give their opinions, but then don't actually vote?) and then removes that flaw by saying it's not the case. That helps to Strengthen the argument mainly by removing one potential flaw the argument could have had. Often these are pretty subtle and harder to recognize because they don't quite advance the argument in the way some Strengthen answers do, but if you're aware of that "removes the flaw" answer type, you can be much more likely to notice it if it comes up.

KarishmaB · Answer

Premises: In last election, R beat C though in person polls predicted that C will beat R. It was found that R supporters were more likely to state their preference in telephone calls, not in person interviews. Conclusion: To accurately predict the result next time, use telephone interviews. Now the first issue that comes to my mind - will C party supporters indicate their preference during telephone interviews? What if they prefer in person interviews only? Will we be able to predict the result accurately with only telephone interviews then? I need to strengthen the case for "telephone interviews only next time" so I will look for something that says that telephone interviews only will be better able to predict the result correctly. A. The number of voters in Country X's next election will be significantly larger than the number of voters in the last election. Irrelevant B. The Conservative Party will win the next election. Irrelevant C. For each person interviewed in telephone polls before the next election, pollsters will be able to reasonably determine the likelihood of that person voting. Now this is a point in favour of telephone interviews. It says that pollsters will be able to determine whether the person interviewed will actually vote or not. We do need this to happen for telephone polls to give accurate result. Say if 100 people were interviewed and 40 favoured C while 60 favoured R. The poll will indicate that R will win. But what if out of 60 of R, 30 do not turn up to vote while all Cs turn up to vote? Then actually C will win. So we need to be able to determine the likelihood of people being interviewed actually voting. If we will be able to determine that, it does strengthen that telephone interviews will give better results. It is not what we were looking for but certainly another important point. D. People who expressed no party preference during the in-person interviews shortly before Country X's last election did not outnumber the people who expressed a preference for the Conservative Party. This doesn't strengthen our argument. If we knew the opposite i.e. people who expressed no preference actually outnumbered the people who preferred C, it might lend some support to our argument. It would seem then that people who prefer R are many but they do not speak up in in person interviews. So telephonic interviews may be better. Sneha2021 E. In the next election, pollsters will be able to conduct more in-person interviews than telephone interviews. Not correct. Answer (C) Here is a discussion on Strengthen Questions: https://youtu.be/mB8bm_a4GNk

DavidTutorexamPAL · Answer

The passage argues that using telephone polls would yield more accurate results than in-person polls because Reform party supporters are more willing to express their opinions. To support this we can show that this logic is correct, and we can also show that the Conservative party supporters would also prefer (or respond similarly) to the telephone polls. We'll look for our inferred answer, a Precise approach.

(C) directly addresses the accuracy of telephone polls and is our answer.

Skywalker18 · Answer

In Country X's last election, the Reform Party beat its main opponent, the Conservative Party, although pollsters, employing in-person interviews shortly before the vote, had projected a Conservative Party victory. Afterwards, the pollsters determined that, unlike Conservative Party supporters, Reform Party supporters were less likely to express their party preference during in-person interviews than they were during telephone interviews. Therefore, using only telephone interviews instead would likely result in more accurate projections for the next election.

Type- strengthen
Core- using only telephone interviews instead would likely result in more accurate projections for the next election.

A. The number of voters in Country X's next election will be significantly larger than the number of voters in the last election.- irrelevant
B. The Conservative Party will win the next election.- irrelevant
C. For each person interviewed in telephone polls before the next election, pollsters will be able to reasonably determine the likelihood of that person voting.- Correct, the earlier system of the in-person interview was shortly before the vote but now in telephone polls, there is a possibility that the person interviewed might not turn up to vote on election day. Thus, this statement will strengthen our case.
D. People who expressed no party preference during the in-person interviews shortly before Country X's last election did not outnumber the people who expressed a preference for the Conservative Party.- irrelevant, we are not concerned about the people who did no express any preference
E. In the next election, pollsters will be able to conduct more in-person interviews than telephone interviews.- irrelevant

Answer C

Archit3110 · Answer

given conclusion ;
Therefore, using only telephone interviews instead would likely result in more accurate projections for the next election.

option C ; 
For each person interviewed in telephone polls before the next election, pollsters will be able to reasonably determine the likelihood of that person voting.
this option is in line with the argument

shaonkarim · Answer

Telephone interview gives exact result than in-person interview.
So, in next election this practice will help the pollster to determine which party will win.

Answer is C

Posted from my mobile device

dcummins · Answer

The argument is that using telephone ONLY interviews instead of in-person interviews before the vote would yield more accurate projections.
This assumes that the reform supporters would then be more likely to express their opinion on who they are going to vote for - the whole reason why telephone interviews are suggested in the first place.

We are asked to strengthen the argument
 A  is incorrect as we don't care about the total size of the voting population, we only care that we yield accurate results. Eliminate 
 B  is obviously incorrect - this is an opinion.
 C.  If the interviewee isn't able to determine whether someone will likely vote then telephone only interviews would not yield more accurate results. Therefore C strengthens the argument, since it is accepted as given, by eliminating any doubt that telephone interviews won't yield more accurate results.
 D  tries to trick the reader into thinking that if the people who did not express a party preference outnumbered the people who did then it would make more sense to conduct telephone interviews. However, we know that the reform party received the majority vote otherwise they wouldn't have won, therefore, since the premises state that Reform supporters don't typically express an opinion, D runs counter to the evidence.

D  did trick me into thinking it was a defender type assumption and I ended up over inferring initially when I answered this.
E is incorrect because it is besides the fact. The argument is concerned with the accuracy of telephone interviews. We know the ONLY telephone interviews will be conducted, so we need some assurance they'll be accurate. Eliminate

VeritasPrepBrian  - Wouldn't mind your or  DavidTutorexamPAL  s view on why D is incorrect for further learning?

DavidTutorexamPAL · Answer

Hey  dcummins ,
IMO the simplest way not to get tripped up by (D) is to eliminate it as 'irrelevant to the argument': since the argument is basically 'phone interviews are better because they provide more reliable info on Reform party members', and since (D) doesn't impact phone interviews' efficacy at all, it should immediately be marked as 'suspicious' and examined in detail only if there is no 'obvious' answer.
If you do end up analyzing (D), then as (D) is a bit reminiscent of DS 'range' questions a good tactic is to look at the extremes of the range. If 50% expressed no preference and 50% preferred Conservative, what would the impact on the argument be? If the ratio was 10% to 90%, what would the impact on the argument be? Very unclear at best, and as you mention possibly counter to the information present in the question stem. Another way to think about this: what additional assumptions would you have to make in order for (D) to strengthen the original argument? Anything 'nontrivial'? Not our answer.

Sneha2021 · Answer

GMATNinja 
 KarishmaB 
Why D is incorrect?
D. People who expressed no party preference during the in-person interviews shortly before Country X's last election did not outnumber the people who expressed a preference for the Conservative Party.

If no. of neutral people were less than people who expressed a preference for the conservative party, the premise that conservative will win is supported.(The Conservative Party, employing in-person interviews shortly before the vote, had projected a Conservative Party victory.)
Although this option doesn't support the conclusion directly, I think it supports the info in the passage.

Elite097 · Answer

avigutman  why not D? Thought that since ppl with no party preference did not outnumber the others, hence telephone interview will be more likely to give accurate results because even despite them not outnumbering, R had only won.  ThatDudeKnows

avigutman · Answer

Hi  Elite097 , I'm having a really hard time following your reasoning above. 
It appears that you're concluding that telephone interviews will result in more accurate projections than in-person interviews will (same as the argument's conclusion), and you're basing this on two premises:
1. People with no party preference (do you mean people  who expressed  no party preference  during the in-person interviews ?) did not outnumber others (by "others", do you mean  the people who expressed a preference for the Conservative Party ?)
2. The Reform Party won the election despite #1 above.
Can you try to elaborate on your train of thought here?

Here's my reaction to answer choice (D):
We are given the following inequality
 People who expressed no party preference during the in-person interviews  <=  people who expressed a preference for the Conservative Party 
Does knowing which of those numbers was greater help me predict which type of interview would result in more accurate projections for the next election? I don't see how. And, by the way, what about the people who expressed a preference for the Reform Party? We don't know anything about that (and I don't see how that information would be useful either)

Elite097 · Answer

why not D? Thought that since ppl with no party preference during in-person interviews did not outnumber the ppl who expressed a preference for Conservation party, hence telephone interview will be more likely to give accurate results because even despite them (ppl with no party preference) not outnumbering, Reform party had only won. In other words, even though the reform party people did not express their preference for in-person interviews and also did not outnumber the others, them expressing no preference has led to incorrect statistics so clearly telephone interviews would have had a major impact in determining accurate results. If despite, them not outnumbering, the data collected is wrong, the of course we would need telephone interviews as they would have made a difference irrespective of no preference people being less in number. On the other had, if they did actually outnumber, then I could say that because more people prefer R, hence the current method did not give correct results, and not the fact that they did not use telephone interview methid.

avigutman

avigutman

avigutman · Answer

Elite097  I'm going to attempt to rephrase your thinking here, please let me know whether I captured it correctly:
 
If I did capture your point correctly, could you please elaborate on your   reasoning  ? If I didn't, please try communicating your point more clearly.

Elite097 · Answer

Yes  avigutman

ArnauG · Answer

The passage discusses the discrepancy between the projected election outcome based on in-person interviews and the actual result in Country X's last election. It suggests that the Reform Party supporters were less likely to express their party preference during in-person interviews compared to telephone interviews. The argument is that using only telephone interviews would likely result in more accurate projections for the next election. We are asked to identify the statement that most supports this argument.

Option A states that the number of voters in Country X's next election will be significantly larger than the number of voters in the last election. However, this statement does not directly support the argument about the accuracy of projections based on interview methods.

Option B claims that the Conservative Party will win the next election. However, this statement does not provide any support for the argument regarding the use of telephone interviews.

Option C suggests that pollsters will be able to reasonably determine the likelihood of each person voting during telephone polls before the next election. This statement directly supports the argument by indicating that telephone interviews could provide more accurate projections if pollsters can assess the likelihood of voting for each person.

Option D states that the number of people who expressed no party preference during the in-person interviews did not outnumber those who expressed a preference for the Conservative Party. This information is unrelated to the argument and does not support the use of telephone interviews.

Option E mentions that pollsters will be able to conduct more in-person interviews than telephone interviews in the next election. However, this statement does not provide support for the argument regarding the accuracy of projections based on interview methods.

Among the options provided, option C most directly supports the argument in the passage. If pollsters can reasonably determine the likelihood of voting for each person during telephone polls before the next election, it suggests that using only telephone interviews would provide more accurate projections. Therefore, option C strengthens the argument by providing a reason to rely on telephone interviews for improved accuracy in projecting the election outcome.

Catman · Answer

D. People who expressed no party preference during the in-person interviews shortly before Country X's last election did not outnumber the people who expressed a preference for the Conservative Party.

This doesn't strengthen our argument. If we knew the opposite i.e. people who expressed no preference actually outnumbered the people who preferred C, it might lend some support to our argument. It would seem then that people who prefer R are many but they do not speak up in in person interviews. So telephonic interviews may be better.

Say if 100 people were interviewed and 40 favoured C while 60 favoured R. The poll will indicate that R will win.

But what if out of 60 of R, 30 do not turn up to vote while all Cs turn up to vote? Then actually C will win.
~ Ellaborating  KarishmaB  reply From my understanding.
 When C outnumbered None 
Acutal Poll Result

Case 1: Total People=100,  C=35, R=55, None=10

Survey C = 35,  R= 25, None = 5
In this case, there is no need of telephonic survey, we just have to increase the survey user base to arrive at the required result. This can be achieved by either In-person or Telephonic interviews.

When Data set is changed ~  No party preference outnumber the C supporter. 
Acutal Poll Result

Case 2: Total People=100,  C=35, R=55, None=10

Survey C = 35,R= 5, None = 25

Now, for C to win election some person who are actually supporting None in the survey lied in the survey and are actually supporting C. Therefore to determine actual number, In-person survey is inaccurate and telephonic survey might be helpful to determine the accurate poll results.

14shubham · Answer

Here, are we assuming that the conservative party's supporters will also provide accurate answers over the telephone instead of in-person interviews? 
As the last ling mentions "using only telephone interviews instead would likely result in more accurate projections for the next election".

KarishmaB · Answer

No, we are not assuming anything Shubham. Keep in mind that there are many many ways in which we can strengthen an argument. 
Option (C) is one of those ways. 
Another could be "conservative party's supporters provide accurate answers over both the telephone and the in-person interviews"

The conclusion is the author's jump in logic. He does gloss over many ifs and buts.

GmatKnightTutor · Answer

In Country X's last election, the Reform Party beat its main opponent, the Conservative Party, although pollsters, employing in-person interviews shortly before the vote, had projected a Conservative Party victory. Afterwards, the pollsters determined that, unlike Conservative Party supporters, Reform Party supporters were less likely to express their party preference during in-person interviews than they were during telephone interviews. Therefore, using only telephone interviews instead would likely result in more accurate projections for the next election. 
 
Which of the following statements, if true, would most support the argument in the passage?

Hello, people. Let's get into this! We have a situation in which one political party beat another even though the pollsters had it the other way. These pollsters thought so based on the in-person interviews before the vote and, later on, concluded that supporters of the party that actually won weren't as likely to say which party they liked during an in-person interview compared to during a telephone interview. That's why, telephone interviews would be more accurate in projecting who will win the next election.

We're asked to look for something that strengthens this.

A. The number of voters in Country X's next election will be significantly larger than the number of voters in the last election. 
Nope. The total number of votes increasing or decreasing doesn't really impact the accuracy of the methodology used to determine which political party is going to win. Even if the total number of voters went from 1 million to 2 million, would that change how potential voters express their party preference during a telephone or in-person interview?

B. The Conservative Party will the next election. 
Not what we're looking for. If this answer choice said that telephone interviews seem to suggest the Conservative Party will win and this party did in fact win the next election, that may be a different matter.

C. For each person interviewed in telephone polls before the next election, pollsters will be able to reasonably determine the likelihood of that person voting. 
This is the answer. It increases the credibility of telephone interviews helping us project which party will win the next election. If you are speaking to someone over the phone and reasonably able to tell whether or not they will ALSO vote for that party, that adds further legitimacy to your projection. Imagine if you have 100,000 people who support a certain party but you don't know whether 20% or 60% of them will actually end up voting.

D. People who expressed no party preference during the in-person interviews shortly before Country X's last election did not outnumber the people who expressed a preference for the Conservative Party. 
Nope. Perhaps if there was some comparitive info - how such people also expressed themselves during telephone interviews - things may have been more interesting.

E. In the next election, pollsters will be able to conduct more in-person interviews than telephone interviews. 
Nope. Even if more in-person interviews were conducted, it won't change the accuracy of those interviews. People who support the Reform Party may still not openly share their views during in-person interviews.

In Country X's last election, the Reform Party beat its main opponent,

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

In Country X's last election, the Reform Party beat its main opponent,

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