It is currently 25 Feb 2018, 19:36

Close

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
Your Progress

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

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Journalist: Well-known businessman Arnold Bergeron has long

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 06 Mar 2010
Posts: 102
Re: Confusing CR [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 26 Jun 2010, 00:58
Will go with E as per the reason given by chetan2u.
Please post the OA & OE to confirm.
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Posts: 154
Re: Confusing CR [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 26 Jun 2010, 05:23
E for me.
_________________


R E S P E C T


Finally KISSedGMAT 700 times 450 to 700 An exprience

VP
VP
avatar
Joined: 17 Feb 2010
Posts: 1466
Re: Confusing CR [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 29 Jun 2010, 18:15
How E can be the OA when the premise says that Bergeron has never run for governor elections.
1 KUDOS received
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 24 Mar 2010
Posts: 49
Re: Confusing CR [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 29 Jun 2010, 19:06
1
This post received
KUDOS
The answer is E.

The argument summarized:

A popular business man has talked about running for governor, but has never run.

The businessman recently did something you have to do to run for governor.

Thus, it is very likely he will run for governor.

The question we would want answered before we could confirm the journalist's reasoning is correct is; is the only reason that he would file these form is to run for governor? If yes, then we can agree with the journalist. If there are other reasons he would file the forms, then we would have to disagree with the journalist.

B is wrong because it does exactly opposite of what we want to know. B would let us know if there are other ways to become a candidate. This is irrelevant because he has filed the forms. What we need to know is if the only reason for filing these forms is to run for governor.

E is the right question. If, in the past, he has filed the form, then, based on the passage, he filed the form and didn't run for governor. This would lead us to conclude that he has other reasons to file the forms other than running for governor. If he hasn't filed the forms in the past, then we would be more inclined to agree with the journalist that he is doing so now to run. Either way, the answer to this question lets us evaluate the journalist's claims.

I hope this helps.

Thanks,

Jared
Kaplan GMAT Instructor
User avatar
Joined: 21 Jun 2010
Posts: 73
Location: Toronto
Re: Confusing CR [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 Jun 2010, 00:57
Quote:
E is the right question. If, in the past, he has filed the form, then, based on the passage, he filed the form and didn't run for governor. This would lead us to conclude that he has other reasons to file the forms other than running for governor. If he hasn't filed the forms in the past, then we would be more inclined to agree with the journalist that he is doing so now to run. Either way, the answer to this question lets us evaluate the journalist's claims.


Fantastic reasoning!

This is called a relevant information question. One strategy for dealing with this question type is to treat it as hybrid strengthen/weaken: the right answer will be something where, if it goes one way, it will strengthen the argument and, if it goes the other way, it will weaken the argument. Let's apply it to choice E:

If he has fulfilled this necessary condition in the past, then the fact that he did so this time also is no longer a good reason for predicting that he will run (since he didn't run in the past), and the argument is weakened. On the other hand, if he hasn't fulfilled this condition in the past, then the fact that he has done so this time stands as a good (but not sufficient!) reason for predicting that he will run this time, and the argument is strengthened. Thus, knowing the answer to this question would be helpful in evaluating the argument.

Let's consider choice B. Remember, we already know from the passage that he HAS in fact fulfilled financial disclosure requriements (by submitting a list of his financial holdings). If he's already fulfilled the financial disclosure requirements, does it really matter whether there may have been other ways for him to do so?
VP
VP
avatar
Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Posts: 1437
Schools: Wharton (R2 - submitted); HBS (R2 - submitted); IIMA (admitted for 1 year PGPX)
Re: Confusing CR [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 Jun 2010, 10:18
Hi Testluv - where would you rate this question on a 800 scale? I found it a tad too easy...perhaps a 680? Is that a fair assessment? Just curious...and would appreciate if you would let us know your thoughts...

Testluv wrote:
Quote:
E is the right question. If, in the past, he has filed the form, then, based on the passage, he filed the form and didn't run for governor. This would lead us to conclude that he has other reasons to file the forms other than running for governor. If he hasn't filed the forms in the past, then we would be more inclined to agree with the journalist that he is doing so now to run. Either way, the answer to this question lets us evaluate the journalist's claims.


Fantastic reasoning!

This is called a relevant information question. One strategy for dealing with this question type is to treat it as hybrid strengthen/weaken: the right answer will be something where, if it goes one way, it will strengthen the argument and, if it goes the other way, it will weaken the argument. Let's apply it to choice E:

If he has fulfilled this necessary condition in the past, then the fact that he did so this time also is no longer a good reason for predicting that he will run (since he didn't run in the past), and the argument is weakened. On the other hand, if he hasn't fulfilled this condition in the past, then the fact that he has done so this time stands as a good (but not sufficient!) reason for predicting that he will run this time, and the argument is strengthened. Thus, knowing the answer to this question would be helpful in evaluating the argument.

Let's consider choice B. Remember, we already know from the passage that he HAS in fact fulfilled financial disclosure requriements (by submitting a list of his financial holdings). If he's already fulfilled the financial disclosure requirements, does it really matter whether there may have been other ways for him to do so?
Kaplan GMAT Instructor
User avatar
Joined: 21 Jun 2010
Posts: 73
Location: Toronto
Re: Confusing CR [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 Jun 2010, 12:45
Hi dwivedys,

thank you for the query. 680 converts to 90th percentile; I don't think this question is that difficult. I woud put this question in the low 600s. Although the argument itself isn't difficult, many people would be lured by choice B.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 25 Feb 2010
Posts: 445
Re: Confusing CR [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 01 Jul 2010, 09:24
I'll go with E

OA please?
_________________

GGG (Gym / GMAT / Girl) -- Be Serious

Its your duty to post OA afterwards; some one must be waiting for that...

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 21 Mar 2010
Posts: 305
Re: Confusing CR [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 01 Jul 2010, 12:42
E for me too
Kaplan GMAT Instructor
User avatar
Joined: 21 Jun 2010
Posts: 73
Location: Toronto
Re: Confusing CR [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 01 Jul 2010, 13:59
Folks,

As I explained in my first post in this thread (page 1), the correct answer is definitely choice E. I also discuss a general strategy for this type of question. If there are any questions, I'm happy to discuss.
Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 21 Dec 2010
Posts: 618
Re: Confusing CR [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 Apr 2011, 01:06
testluv , strange user name ,what does it mean .

anyway , E is the answer , simple question that. took me 1:23 secs
_________________

What is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy's strategy.

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 12 Oct 2009
Posts: 247
Schools: Columbia, INSEAD, RSM, LBS
Re: Confusing CR [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 02 May 2011, 13:32
E for me
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 02 Nov 2009
Posts: 135
Journalist: Well-known businessman Arnold Bergeron has long [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Jul 2012, 08:18
Journalist: Well-known businessman Arnold Bergeron has long been popular in the state, and he has often talked about running for governor, but he has never run. However, we have just learned that Bergeron has fulfilled the financial disclosure requirement for candidacy by submitting a detailed list of his current financial holdings to the election commission. So, it is
very likely that Bergeron will be a candidate for governor this year.

The answer to which of the following questions would be most useful in evaluating the journalist’s argument?

A. Has anybody else who has fulfilled the financial disclosure requirement for the upcoming election reported greater financial holdings than Bergeron?
B. Is submitting a list of holdings the only way to fulfill the election commission’s financial disclosure requirements?
C. Did the information recently obtained by the journalists come directly from the election commission?
D. Have Bergeron’s financial holdings increased in value in recent years?
E. Had Bergeron also fulfilled the financial disclosure requirements for candidacy before any previous gubernatorial elections?




please can anyone of the experts help here .... how is A not relevant

here all we are talking about is if he is the best candiae and he will be elected

but if any other candidate has declared greater holdings then he is not possibly going to win

Please help... :?
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
Posts: 15
Location: United States
Re: Evaluate - Well-known businessman Arnold [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Jul 2012, 10:56
its not about win or lose .its about candidate.

answer to question e will tell that he will run for the election..

experts can elaborate further.

thanks !

venmic wrote:
Journalist: Well-known businessman Arnold Bergeron has long been popular in the state, and he has often talked about running for governor, but he has never run. However, we have just learned that Bergeron has fulfilled the financial disclosure requirement for candidacy by submitting a detailed list of his current financial holdings to the election commission. So, it is
very likely that Bergeron will be a candidate for governor this year.

The answer to which of the following questions would be most useful in evaluating the journalist’s argument?

A. Has anybody else who has fulfilled the financial disclosure requirement for the upcoming election reported greater financial holdings than Bergeron?
B. Is submitting a list of holdings the only way to fulfill the election commission’s financial disclosure requirements?
C. Did the information recently obtained by the journalists come directly from the election commission?
D. Have Bergeron’s financial holdings increased in value in recent years?
E. Had Bergeron also fulfilled the financial disclosure requirements for candidacy before any previous gubernatorial elections?




please can anyone of the experts help here .... how is A not relevant

here all we are talking about is if he is the best candiae and he will be elected

but if any other candidate has declared greater holdings then he is not possibly going to win

Please help... :?
Board of Directors
User avatar
G
Joined: 01 Sep 2010
Posts: 3483
Re: Evaluate - Well-known businessman Arnold [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Jul 2012, 16:05
venmic wrote:
Journalist: Well-known businessman Arnold Bergeron has long been popular in the state, and he has often talked about running for governor, but he has never run. However, we have just learned that Bergeron has fulfilled the financial disclosure requirement for candidacy by submitting a detailed list of his current financial holdings to the election commission. So, it is
very likely that Bergeron will be a candidate for governor this year.

The answer to which of the following questions would be most useful in evaluating the journalist’s argument?

A. Has anybody else who has fulfilled the financial disclosure requirement for the upcoming election reported greater financial holdings than Bergeron?
B. Is submitting a list of holdings the only way to fulfill the election commission’s financial disclosure requirements?
C. Did the information recently obtained by the journalists come directly from the election commission?
D. Have Bergeron’s financial holdings increased in value in recent years?
E. Had Bergeron also fulfilled the financial disclosure requirements for candidacy before any previous gubernatorial elections?




please can anyone of the experts help here .... how is A not relevant

here all we are talking about is if he is the best candiae and he will be elected

but if any other candidate has declared greater holdings then he is not possibly going to win

Please help... :?



Evaluate the argument is one of the most difficult question to attack among CR because is abstract and also is difficult to figure out.

I'll try: first of all in all evaluate the argument you must dissect the argument and then choose an answer that at THE SAME TIME weaken and strenghten the argument itself.

Bold ----> premises. Red ---> Conclusion

A) has anybody else---> irrilevant

B) may we have another way to know the requirements

C) Journalist information ----> irrilevant to the question

D) increased in value ---> is not important to evaluate if he will run for governor

E) yes ----> we have streghtened the argument because that means the intention to run as governor. NO ---> weaken the argument because we have no indication if he will run or not and we have no comparison with other people before him. we haven't got a definitive answer.

So E wins.

Take away from this kind of CR: you have to identify the stimulus in premises and conclusion. trying to find the assumption if you can. attack the conclusion that AT THE SAME TIME have to strenghten and weaken the conclusion itself.

Hope this response helps you :)
_________________

COLLECTION OF QUESTIONS AND RESOURCES
Quant: 1. ALL GMATPrep questions Quant/Verbal 2. Bunuel Signature Collection - The Next Generation 3. Bunuel Signature Collection ALL-IN-ONE WITH SOLUTIONS 4. Veritas Prep Blog PDF Version 5. MGMAT Study Hall Thursdays with Ron Quant Videos
Verbal:1. Verbal question bank and directories by Carcass 2. MGMAT Study Hall Thursdays with Ron Verbal Videos 3. Critical Reasoning_Oldy but goldy question banks 4. Sentence Correction_Oldy but goldy question banks 5. Reading-comprehension_Oldy but goldy question banks

3 KUDOS received
SVP
SVP
User avatar
S
Joined: 14 Apr 2009
Posts: 2146
Location: New York, NY
Re: Evaluate - Well-known businessman Arnold [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Jul 2012, 19:04
3
This post received
KUDOS
venmic,

(A) is not relevant because the information does not lead us in one way or the other towards supporting the argument if it were True vs False.

"Financial disclosure" somehow linked to "running for governor".

This is an "evaluate" question. The key to these types of questions is that the answer choices have 2 states. One state should strengthen the argument, the other should weaken it.

We have a gap in the link between the 2 topics stated above.

(A) Has anybody else who has fulfilled the financial disclosure requirement for the upcoming election reported greater financial holdings than Bergeron?

The level of financial holdings (whether greater or less than Bergeron) is not relevant to linking the 2 topics above - "financial disclosure" and "running for governor". There is absolutely no link so (A) is irrelevant.


(E) Had Bergeron also fulfilled the financial disclosure requirements for candidacy before any previous gubernatorial elections?

We know that Bergeron NEVER ran for governor before. So what are the 2 possible states in this answer choice?

If YES, Bergeron DID indeed fulfill financial disclosure requirements in prior elections...yet he NEVER ran and was never a candidate.
If NO, Bergeron did NOT fulfill financial disclosure requirements in prior elections...and yes he never ran in the past and was never a candidate.

(E) brings in the possibility that in the "YES" case there is evidence in the past that Bergeron DID have financial disclosure. Well in the passage, it's possible that Bergeron fulfilled financial disclosure this time around but might not run for governor, as was the case in the past. THis WEAKENS the argument.

In the other case, we do not interfere and the argument that Bergeron will actually run for governor this time around because he fulfilled financial disclosure is actually strengthened because we don't have a case that goes against it.

Because of the 2 scenarios that play out with answer choice (E), (E) helps us better evaluate the argument and decide whether it is a valid argument or an invalid one.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 02 Nov 2009
Posts: 135
Re: Evaluate - Well-known businessman Arnold [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Jul 2012, 20:08
Thanks great explanation

gmatpill wrote:
venmic,

(A) is not relevant because the information does not lead us in one way or the other towards supporting the argument if it were True vs False.

"Financial disclosure" somehow linked to "running for governor".

This is an "evaluate" question. The key to these types of questions is that the answer choices have 2 states. One state should strengthen the argument, the other should weaken it.

We have a gap in the link between the 2 topics stated above.

(A) Has anybody else who has fulfilled the financial disclosure requirement for the upcoming election reported greater financial holdings than Bergeron?

The level of financial holdings (whether greater or less than Bergeron) is not relevant to linking the 2 topics above - "financial disclosure" and "running for governor". There is absolutely no link so (A) is irrelevant.


(E) Had Bergeron also fulfilled the financial disclosure requirements for candidacy before any previous gubernatorial elections?

We know that Bergeron NEVER ran for governor before. So what are the 2 possible states in this answer choice?

If YES, Bergeron DID indeed fulfill financial disclosure requirements in prior elections...yet he NEVER ran and was never a candidate.
If NO, Bergeron did NOT fulfill financial disclosure requirements in prior elections...and yes he never ran in the past and was never a candidate.

(E) brings in the possibility that in the "YES" case there is evidence in the past that Bergeron DID have financial disclosure. Well in the passage, it's possible that Bergeron fulfilled financial disclosure this time around but might not run for governor, as was the case in the past. THis WEAKENS the argument.

In the other case, we do not interfere and the argument that Bergeron will actually run for governor this time around because he fulfilled financial disclosure is actually strengthened because we don't have a case that goes against it.

Because of the 2 scenarios that play out with answer choice (E), (E) helps us better evaluate the argument and decide whether it is a valid argument or an invalid one.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 10 May 2012
Posts: 62
Re: Evaluate - Well-known businessman Arnold [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 28 Jul 2012, 16:18
I narrowed to B and E . However i Choose B over E . Why is B not a good option.

Last edited by Narenn on 01 Oct 2013, 10:35, edited 1 time in total.
All similar threads have been merged.
Director
Director
User avatar
S
Affiliations: CrackVerbal
Joined: 03 Oct 2013
Posts: 518
Location: India
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
Re: Journalist: Well-known businessman Arnold Bergeron has long [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 Oct 2013, 00:38
The facts of the argument are: Arnold has been popular; He has talked about running for governor; He has fulfilled financial disclosure requirement (this year).
Based on these facts the argument concludes that Arnold is very likely to be a candidate for governor this year.

We need an answer choice that will help us evaluate the conclusion.
The inconsistency lies between Arnold fulfilling disclosure requirement and his being very likely to be candidate for governor this year. We do not know whether Arnold fulfilled the requirement in the previous years!
In fact if we come to know that he had fulfilled the disclosure requirements in the previous years, then it will be obvious that he is no less likely to be a candidate. On the other hand if we find that he did not fulfill the requirement in the previous years he is more likely to be a candidate. E is therefore the correct answer.

Whether "submitting a detailed list of holdings is the ONLY way to fulfill the financial disclosure requirement" is irrelevant because we know that he has in fact fulfilled the requirement! And evaluating this piece of information has no consequence to the conclusion of the argument!

Ajeeth Peo
Verbal Instructor
_________________

Join Free 4 part MBA Through GMAT Video Training Series here -
https://gmat.crackverbal.com/mba-through-gmat-video-2018

Enroll for our GMAT Trial Course here -
http://gmatonline.crackverbal.com/

For more info on GMAT and MBA, follow us on @AskCrackVerbal

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 22 Apr 2013
Posts: 95
Location: India
Concentration: Finance
GMAT 1: 660 Q48 V33
Re: Journalist: Well-known businessman Arnold Bergeron has long [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 Oct 2013, 21:29
I could easily eliminate all other options and choose E.

E is the only one that makes sense because it attacks the only way we will know if he has run for elections before. The passage states that because he files his current financial holdings he is likely to run.
So if he filed his financial holding before he would have perhaps run for candidacy before as well.

Btw, what would be the level of this question?
Re: Journalist: Well-known businessman Arnold Bergeron has long   [#permalink] 21 Oct 2013, 21:29

Go to page   Previous    1   2   3   4   5   6    Next  [ 114 posts ] 

Display posts from previous: Sort by

Journalist: Well-known businessman Arnold Bergeron has long

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.