It is even more important that we criticize democracies that have comm

Question

It is even more important that we criticize democracies that have committed human rights violations than that we criticize dictatorships that have committed more violent human rights offenses. Human rights violations are always inexcusable, but those committed by governments that represent the will of the people are even more reprehensible than those committed by dictators. Further, our criticism is more likely to have an effect on the former than on the latter.

Which one of the following is a proper inference from the passage?

(A) All governments commit some inexcusable and reprehensible acts.

(B) Some human rights violations are more reprehensible than other, more violent human rights violations.

(C) Criticism of human rights violations is certain to have no effect on a dictatorship.

(D) Human rights violations are more likely to occur in democracies than in dictatorships.

(E) Those who do represent the will of the people are less likely to be moved by criticism than are those who merely claim to represent the will of the people.

DmitryFarberMPrep · Accepted Answer

akash.tripathi , we can get B directly from the argument. It states clearly that violations "committed by governments that represent the will of the people are even more reprehensible than those committed by dictators." So we know that some violations are more reprehensible than others. The author is using this to explain why we should be more upset by violations committed by democracies than by *more violent* violations committed by dictators. So apparently actions by democracies can be more reprehensible than these more violent violations, because they are performed by those who are supposed to be representing the will of the people.

E isn't valid because we are only told that democracies are more responsive than dictatorships. We don't know that dictators *claim* to represent the will of the people, so we can't connect that statement to E, which compares those who really represent the people to those who merely claim to.

akash.tripathi · Answer

B is wrong, here we are not at all comparing some human right violation then more violent human right violation.

E should be the answer. This is something definite and passage talks about? Experts please explain ?

akash.tripathi · Answer

B is wrong, here we are not at all comparing some human right violation then more violent human right violation.

E should be the answer. This is something definite and passage talks about? Experts please explain ?

subrataroy0210 · Answer

It is even more important that we criticize democracies that have committed human rights violations than that we criticize dictatorships that have committed more violent human rights offenses. Human rights violations are always inexcusable, but those committed by governments that represent the will of the people are even more reprehensible than those committed by dictators. Further, our criticism is more likely to have an effect on the former than on the latter.

Which one of the following is a proper inference from the passage?

(A) All governments commit some inexcusable and reprehensible acts.
 "All governments" is too strong to infer from the amount of information given.

(B) Some human rights violations are more reprehensible than other, more violent human rights violations. 
 There's a fair possibility as is evident from this part of the passage "...but those committed by governments that represent the will of the people are even more reprehensible than those committed by dictators..."

(C) Criticism of human rights violations is certain to have no effect on a dictatorship.
 Comparatively less effect doesn't mean zero effect.

(D) Human rights violations are more likely to occur in democracies than in dictatorships.
 No information provided in the passage in this context.

(E) Those who do represent the will of the people are less likely to be moved by criticism than are those who merely claim to represent the will of the people.
 1. "Those who do represent the will of the people" refers to the government and as per the last sentence of the argument, the government will have a greater effect. 
2. We can't be sure whether "those who merely claim to represent the will of the people" represents dictators and even if it does, the whole idea contradicts the last line of the argument.

Thus, option B.

leanhdung · Answer

It is even more important that we criticize democracies that have committed human rights violations than that we criticize dictatorships that have committed more violent human rights offenses. Human rights violations are always inexcusable, but  those  committed by governments that represent the will of the people are even  more reprehensible than those  committed by dictators. Further, our criticism is more likely to have an effect on the former than on the latter. Which one of the following is a proper inference from the passage?

(A)  All  governments commit some inexcusable and reprehensible acts.

(B) Some human rights violations are more reprehensible than other, more violent human rights violations.
--> correct as highlighted in green color in stimulus.

(C) Criticism of human rights violations is certain to have no effect on a dictatorship.
--> out of scope.

(D) Human rights violations are more likely to occur in democracies than in dictatorships.
--> out of scope.

(E) Those who do represent the will of the people are less likely to be moved by criticism than are those who merely claim to represent the will of the people.
--> contradict the stimulus.

pingala · Answer

Question is a bit tricky. I felt that A and C are trick choices. While D and E were clearly the wrong choices, but the language in E, if not read with attention would make it the only choice in my opinion, but that is the red herring in the choices. The fact that you don't comprehend, fully process, or skip over that key word "Those who do represent the will of the people will be  less  likely". I wasn't convinced by A and C and I hand't crossed out B from the choices. Because A and C both come off s being absolutes in the sense that the language is strong, I guessed B. Not sure if I totally would be able to process the logic through this way in real test setting though.

Skywalker18 · Answer

This is a must be true question so the correct answer choice should be something we can infer based on the information provided in the stimulus. For these question types our goal is to use the statements in the stimulus and see how they interact with another in order to be able to make a feasible inference. For example, if I say I like movies that have a lot of action in them and then later make the assertion that a new movie that is about to come out is critically acclaimed as the most action packed movie in decades then you could be able to reasonably infer that I will like this new movie that is about to come out. You can infer this simply by combining the elements of my first statement and second statement and see how the two logically connect.

In this question we are told in the first sentence that it is more important to criticize democracies that commit human rights violations than dictatorships. Why? Because it is even more reprehensible to commit human rights violations when you are supposed to represent the will of the people (a democracy) than when the government is a dictatorship. And lastly the argument says that criticism directed towards democracies would have more of an effect than if they were directed towards dictatorships.

Answer choices:

A) Incorrect - "All" should be an immediate red flag here and should always prompt your suspicion when you're dealing with a must be true question and 'All' shows up in one of the answer choices. The qualifier is usually too broad and strong to be justified using the stimulus and this is no exception.

B) This is the correct answer"”we can make this inference based on the information provided in the first and second sentence of the stimulus. The first sentence says that democracies should be criticized more than dictatorships that commit "more violent human rights offenses" and the second statement says democracies are more reprehensible than dictatorships. Combining the elements of both statements we can infer what B is saying.

C) we can't infer this; "certain" is much too strong and we don't know what effect, if at all, criticism would have on dictatorships

D) Also not supported; we don't know what the likelihood is in either scenario

E) is a little tricky and it may be tempting at first to give this answer choice some thought. But this actually says the opposite of what the stim says by saying that democracies would be less likely to be moved by criticism when the stimulus says they would be more likely. Also this answer choice makes the distinction between those that "merely claim to represent the will of the people" and those that do in fact represent the will of the people, but we know nothing about those who "merely claim" to do so.

gmatexam439 · Answer

It is even more important that we criticize democracies that have committed human rights violations than that we criticize dictatorships that have committed more violent human rights offenses. Human rights violations are always inexcusable, but those committed by governments that represent the will of the people are even more reprehensible than those committed by dictators. Further, our criticism is more likely to have an effect on the former than on the latter.

Which one of the following is a proper inference from the passage?

(A) All governments commit some inexcusable and reprehensible acts. -- Exaggerated

(B) Some human rights violations are more reprehensible than other, more violent human rights violations. -- Correct. Government's violation > Dictator's violation

(C) Criticism of human rights violations is certain to have no effect on a dictatorship. -- Exaggerated

(D) Human rights violations are more likely to occur in democracies than in dictatorships. -- Exaggerated

(E) Those who do represent the will of the people are less likely to be moved by criticism than are those who merely claim to represent the will of the people. -- Opposite of what is given in the passage

GmatDisciple · Answer

It is even more important that we criticize democracies that have committed human rights violations than that we criticize dictatorships that have committed more violent human rights offenses. Human rights violations are always inexcusable, but  those committed by governments that represent the will of the people are even more reprehensible than those committed by dictators . Further, our criticism is more likely to have an effect on the former than on the latter.

Which one of the following is a proper inference from the passage?

(A)  All  governments commit some inexcusable and reprehensible acts.
 Extreme wording. Not mentioned anywhere in the argument that all governments are guilty.
 
(B) Some human rights violations are more reprehensible than other, more violent human rights violations.
 Correct: Backed up by the second line in argument (highlighted in green)
 
(C) Criticism of human rights violations is  certain  to have no effect on a dictatorship. 
 Extreme wording. Not supported.
 
(D) Human rights violations are more likely to occur in democracies than in dictatorships.
 Not supported
 
(E) Those who do represent the will of the people are less likely to be moved by criticism than are those who merely claim to represent the will of the people.
 Opposite of what the last line in argument mentions, (if "Those who do represent..." refers to Democracy and "those who merely claim to represent" is assumed to refer to dictators)
References are unclear at best.

unraveled · Answer

It is even more important that we criticize democracies that have committed human rights violations than that we criticize dictatorships that have committed more violent human rights offenses. Human rights violations are always inexcusable, but those committed by governments that represent the will of the people are even more reprehensible than those committed by dictators. Further, our criticism is more likely to have an effect on the former than on the latter.

Which one of the following is a proper inference from the passage?

(A)  All  governments commit some inexcusable and reprehensible acts. - WRONG. Plain not right.

(B) Some human rights violations are  more reprehensible than other , more violent human rights violations. - WRONG. Second last sentence suggests so.

(C) Criticism of human rights violations is  certain to have no effect  on a dictatorship. - WRONG. Not sure and bit extreme in claim.

(D) Human rights violations are  more likely to occur in democracies than in dictatorships . - WRONG. No such comparison is possible.

(E) Those  who do represent the will of the people  are less likely to be moved by criticism than are those  who merely claim to represent the will of the people . - WRONG. If someone missed B then this one certainly would be the choice. Additionally, upon missing B one may misread(in a hurry) this one as in those who represent and those who don't. This eventually talks about representing the will of the people which is certainly not mentioned or ascertainable from the passage. We know(from passage) certainly that democracies represent will but we are not sure that dictatorship represent or merely claim to represent.

Answer B.

KittyDoodles · Answer

Hi Experts,  KarishmaB ,  nightblade354 ,  GMATNinja

Please can you advise how Option B can be inferred from the passage.

Option B just states a type of human right violation is more reprehensible than the more violent human right violations, while as per the passage the human right violations committed by democracies is more reprehensible than the more violent human right violations committed by dictatorships.

I didn't select Option B as I felt Option B makes a more general statement of the types of human right violations that are more reprehensible rather than stating the type of governments conducting them which makes the violations reprehensible.

Thanks
Kitty

MartyTargetTestPrep · Answer

Here's what the passage says.

Human rights violations are always inexcusable, but those committed by governments that represent the will of the people are even more reprehensible than those (more violent ones) committed by dictators.

We can see that, if the violations committed by governments that represent the will of the people are more reprehensible than the more violent ones committed by dictators, then there are in fact some that are more reprehensible than the more violent violations committed by dictators.

Here's (B).

(B) Some human rights violations are more reprehensible than other, more violent human rights violations.

While (B) says something more general than what the passage says, we can see that, (B) does follow from what the passage indicates, that some violations are more reprehensible than the more violent violations committed by dictators. After all, the passage presents "some violations" that are more reprehensible than "other, more violent human rights violations."

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

It is even more important that we criticize democracies that have comm

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

It is even more important that we criticize democracies that have comm

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