Last visit was: 19 Nov 2025, 12:07 It is currently 19 Nov 2025, 12:07
Home
GMAT
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
Rewards
Chat
My Profile
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.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
Back to Forum
Create Topic
   1   2 
555-605 Level|   Evaluate Argument|         
User avatar
Sneha2021
User avatar
Joined: 20 Dec 2020
Last visit: 10 Jun 2025
Posts: 314
Own Kudos:
38
Given Kudos: 522
Location: India
Posts: 314
Kudos: 38
Journalist: Well-known businessman Arnold Bergeron has long been popul 02 Dec 2021, 03:57
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
VeritasKarishma GMATNinja

Why B is incorrect?
Please let me know why my reasoning is incorrect.
(B) Is submitting a list of holdings the only way to fulfill the election commission's financial disclosure requirements
Yes, If submitting a list of holdings the only way to fulfill the requirement and if he has completed that requirement, he is likely to participate in the election. Yes definitely strengthens the argument.

No. If there are other ways to fulfill the requirements, we can't be sure about the conclusion because it depends on whether he fulfils all the other requirements. So this case will mildly decrease my belief in the conclusion.

B attacks the reason (fulfill the requirement for candidacy) to arrive at conclusion. Then why it is irrelevant?

Thank you for your time.
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 7,443
Own Kudos:
69,786
 [1]
Given Kudos: 2,060
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,443
Kudos: 69,786
 [1]
Journalist: Well-known businessman Arnold Bergeron has long been popul 08 Dec 2021, 09:23
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Sneha2021
VeritasKarishma GMATNinja

Why B is incorrect?
Please let me know why my reasoning is incorrect.
(B) Is submitting a list of holdings the only way to fulfill the election commission's financial disclosure requirements
Yes, If submitting a list of holdings the only way to fulfill the requirement and if he has completed that requirement, he is likely to participate in the election. Yes definitely strengthens the argument.

No. If there are other ways to fulfill the requirements, we can't be sure about the conclusion because it depends on whether he fulfils all the other requirements. So this case will mildly decrease my belief in the conclusion.

B attacks the reason (fulfill the requirement for candidacy) to arrive at conclusion. Then why it is irrelevant?

Thank you for your time.
Show more
Let's start by taking a close look at (B):

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

(B) Is submitting a list of holdings the only way to fulfill the election commission's financial disclosure requirements?
Show more
As you say, if the answer to this were yes, we'd know that submitting a list of holdings is the only way to fulfill the requirements. But just because it's the only way doesn't mean that Bergeron did it because he's planning to run for governor.

To illustrate this point - imagine we want to prove that someone is intending to visit their cousin. As evidence, we point out this person just got a car. Would it strengthen our argument if we could prove that the only way to get to their cousin's house is by car?

Not really. This person may have got the car to drive to their cousin's house, or they may have got it for some completely different reason (to drive to work). In same way, Bergeron may have submitted the list because he plans to run for governor, or he may have done it for some other reason. The fact that it's the only way doesn't help us evaluate the argument.

But what if the answer to (B) were no?

This would mean there are other ways for Bergeron to fulfill the requirement. But just because there are other ways doesn't make it less likely that he's planning to run for governor.

Going back to our car example - imagine we learn that using a car is NOT the only way to get to the cousin's house. Let's say it's perfectly possible to get there by bus. But that doesn't help us evaluate whether the person is planning to visit their cousin. Just because there are other ways doesn't strengthen the idea that they are NOT going to visit their cousin.

In the same way, just because there are other ways to fulfill the requirement doesn't mean that Bergeron isn't planning to run for governor. Nor does it mean that Bergeron would need to "fulfill all the other requirements." It only tells us that other options for fulfilling the requirement exist.

So no matter the answer to (B), it wouldn't help us evaluate the argument that "Bergeron will be a candidate for governor this year," so (B) is incorrect.

I hope that helps!
User avatar
jabhatta2
User avatar
Joined: 15 Dec 2016
Last visit: 21 Apr 2023
Posts: 1,294
Own Kudos:
317
Given Kudos: 188
Posts: 1,294
Kudos: 317
Journalist: Well-known businessman Arnold Bergeron has long been popul 16 Dec 2021, 13:55
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
GMATNinja

Let's start by taking a close look at (B):

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

(B) Is submitting a list of holdings the only way to fulfill the election commission's financial disclosure requirements?
As you say, if the answer to this were yes, we'd know that submitting a list of holdings is the only way to fulfill the requirements. But just because it's the only way doesn't mean that Bergeron did it because he's planning to run for governor.

To illustrate this point - imagine we want to prove that someone is intending to visit their cousin. As evidence, we point out this person just got a car. Would it strengthen our argument if we could prove that the only way to get to their cousin's house is by car?

Not really. This person may have got the car to drive to their cousin's house, or they may have got it for some completely different reason (to drive to work). In same way, Bergeron may have submitted the list because he plans to run for governor, or he may have done it for some other reason. The fact that it's the only way doesn't help us evaluate the argument.

But what if the answer to (B) were no?

This would mean there are other ways for Bergeron to fulfill the requirement. But just because there are other ways doesn't make it less likely that he's planning to run for governor.

Going back to our car example - imagine we learn that using a car is NOT the only way to get to the cousin's house. Let's say it's perfectly possible to get there by bus. But that doesn't help us evaluate whether the person is planning to visit their cousin. Just because there are other ways doesn't strengthen the idea that they are NOT going to visit their cousin.

In the same way, just because there are other ways to fulfill the requirement doesn't mean that Bergeron isn't planning to run for governor. Nor does it mean that Bergeron would need to "fulfill all the other requirements." It only tells us that other options for fulfilling the requirement exist.

So no matter the answer to (B), it wouldn't help us evaluate the argument that "Bergeron will be a candidate for governor this year," so (B) is incorrect.

I hope that helps!
Show more

Hi GMATNinja - going back to the car analogy in the purple font you mentioned above -- i tried to understand how option E would play out in such an analagous scenario.

Quote:

Story : Sam's cousins live 50 kms away whereas Sam lives downtown. Sam recently rented out a car. Thus, Sam must be visiting his cousins.

What would usefull to evaluate ?

Option E - Has Sam rented a car prior to visiting his cousins, in the past ?
Show more

-- If Yes : i dont think this strengthens because Sam did rent a car IN THE PAST prior to visting his cousins in the past. But that doesnt strengthen he has rented the car out this time specifically to visit his cousins..

-- If No : i dont think this has any impact. What happened in the past has no bearing on the present. Maybe he didnt rent out a car but still visited his cousins in the past. That does not weaken anything about the present.

Thus - same criticism on option E regarding the original question.

Just because something happened / did not happen in the past -- how does that help us evaluate about something in the present tense ?

thoughts on where i must be going wrong
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 7,443
Own Kudos:
69,786
 [1]
Given Kudos: 2,060
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,443
Kudos: 69,786
 [1]
Journalist: Well-known businessman Arnold Bergeron has long been popul 01 Feb 2022, 12:58
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
jabhatta2
GMATNinja

Let's start by taking a close look at (B):

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

(B) Is submitting a list of holdings the only way to fulfill the election commission's financial disclosure requirements?
As you say, if the answer to this were yes, we'd know that submitting a list of holdings is the only way to fulfill the requirements. But just because it's the only way doesn't mean that Bergeron did it because he's planning to run for governor.

To illustrate this point - imagine we want to prove that someone is intending to visit their cousin. As evidence, we point out this person just got a car. Would it strengthen our argument if we could prove that the only way to get to their cousin's house is by car?

Not really. This person may have got the car to drive to their cousin's house, or they may have got it for some completely different reason (to drive to work). In same way, Bergeron may have submitted the list because he plans to run for governor, or he may have done it for some other reason. The fact that it's the only way doesn't help us evaluate the argument.

But what if the answer to (B) were no?

This would mean there are other ways for Bergeron to fulfill the requirement. But just because there are other ways doesn't make it less likely that he's planning to run for governor.

Going back to our car example - imagine we learn that using a car is NOT the only way to get to the cousin's house. Let's say it's perfectly possible to get there by bus. But that doesn't help us evaluate whether the person is planning to visit their cousin. Just because there are other ways doesn't strengthen the idea that they are NOT going to visit their cousin.

In the same way, just because there are other ways to fulfill the requirement doesn't mean that Bergeron isn't planning to run for governor. Nor does it mean that Bergeron would need to "fulfill all the other requirements." It only tells us that other options for fulfilling the requirement exist.

So no matter the answer to (B), it wouldn't help us evaluate the argument that "Bergeron will be a candidate for governor this year," so (B) is incorrect.

I hope that helps!

Hi GMATNinja - going back to the car analogy in the purple font you mentioned above -- i tried to understand how option E would play out in such an analagous scenario.

Quote:

Story : Sam's cousins live 50 kms away whereas Sam lives downtown. Sam recently rented out a car. Thus, Sam must be visiting his cousins.

What would usefull to evaluate ?

Option E - Has Sam rented a car prior to visiting his cousins, in the past ?

-- If Yes : i dont think this strengthens because Sam did rent a car IN THE PAST prior to visting his cousins in the past. But that doesnt strengthen he has rented the car out this time specifically to visit his cousins..

-- If No : i dont think this has any impact. What happened in the past has no bearing on the present. Maybe he didnt rent out a car but still visited his cousins in the past. That does not weaken anything about the present.

Thus - same criticism on option E regarding the original question.

Just because something happened / did not happen in the past -- how does that help us evaluate about something in the present tense ?

thoughts on where i must be going wrong
Show more
The right answer choice here should be the one "most useful in evaluating the journalist's argument."

Notice we aren't looking for something that proves the journalist's argument is correct. In other words, we're not looking for a rock-solid piece of evidence that Bergeron "will be a candidate for governor this year." The right answer simply has to be the most useful of all the options for evaluating the argument.

Let's take another look at (E):

Quote:
(E) Had Bergeron also fulfilled the financial disclosure requirements for candidacy before any previous gubernatorial elections?
Show more
If the answer is "yes," what does that tell us? Well, it that shows that submitting the requirement doesn't necessarily mean Bergeron is going to run. Sure, it doesn't PROVE that he won't be running this year. But it does weaken the journalist's argument that he's "likely" to run. Keep in mind -- the journalist's argument hinges on the idea that submitting the requirement = Bergeron is likely to run for governor. Since (E) weakens that link, it helps us evaluate the argument.

If the answer is "no," on the other hand, the journalist's argument is strengthened. Because it would show that Bergeron has taken a step towards running for governor he's never taken in the past.

Of course, the answer to (E) certainly wouldn't prove the journalist's argument either way. As you suggest, past behavior isn't a rock solid indicator of present behavior. But here's the key -- we're not looking for rock-solid evidence. We just need something that will be the "most helpful" for "evaluating the argument" that Bergeron is "likely" to run. And since (E) is more helpful than the other choices, it's correct. (In case it helps, check out this explanation of why the other answer choices are not useful for evaluating the argument).

But what about the car analogy? In general, I wouldn't worry to much about analogies, since they will always differ from the question in significant ways. But in case it helps, let's consider your Sam example.

Argument: Sam has never visited his cousin during the summer in the past, but renting a car is necessary for visiting his cousin. Since he has rented a car this summer, he is likely to visit his cousin.

Answer choice: Has Sam ever rented a car during the summer?

What if the answer were "yes?" Well, if Sam has rented a car and NOT visited his cousin in the past, it shows that he has rented a car for other reasons than to visit his cousin. As you say, this doesn't PROVE that he won't visit his cousin this summer. But it does weaken the idea that renting a car = Sam is likely to visit his cousin. So it would be helpful for evaluating that argument.

Similarly, if he has NOT rented a car in the past, it shows that he's doing something differently this year. And since one reason to rent a car is to visit his cousin, this strengthens the idea that renting a car = Sam is likely to visit his cousin. It definitely doesn't prove that he's going to visit his cousin, but it could helps us evaluate the argument.

I hope that helps!
User avatar
ArnauG
User avatar
Joined: 23 Dec 2022
Last visit: 14 Oct 2023
Posts: 298
Own Kudos:
42
Given Kudos: 199
Posts: 298
Kudos: 42
Journalist: Well-known businessman Arnold Bergeron has long been popul 20 May 2023, 09:37
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
To evaluate the journalist's argument, let's examine each option:

(A) Has anybody else who has fulfilled the financial disclosure requirement for the upcoming election reported greater financial holdings than Bergeron?
This question is not directly relevant to evaluating the journalist's argument. It focuses on the financial holdings of other candidates, rather than assessing the likelihood of Bergeron's candidacy based on his fulfillment of the financial disclosure requirement.

(B) Is submitting a list of holdings the only way to fulfill the election commission's financial disclosure requirements?
This question is important to evaluate the journalist's argument. If there are alternative ways to fulfill the financial disclosure requirements, it weakens the assumption that Bergeron's submission of the list indicates his intention to run for governor.

(C) Did the information recently obtained by the journalists come directly from the election commission?
This question addresses the source of the information but does not directly evaluate the journalist's argument. It focuses on the validity of the information rather than the likelihood of Bergeron's candidacy.

(D) Have Bergeron's financial holdings increased in value in recent years?
This question is not directly relevant to evaluating the journalist's argument. It pertains to the value of Bergeron's financial holdings rather than the likelihood of his candidacy.

(E) Had Bergeron also fulfilled the financial disclosure requirements for candidacy before any previous gubernatorial elections?
This question is crucial in evaluating the journalist's argument. If Bergeron has previously fulfilled the financial disclosure requirements for candidacy without running for governor, it weakens the assumption that his recent fulfillment indicates his intention to run this year.

In conclusion, the option that is most useful in evaluating the journalist's argument is (E): Had Bergeron also fulfilled the financial disclosure requirements for candidacy before any previous gubernatorial elections? This question addresses whether Bergeron's fulfillment of the financial disclosure requirements is a recurring pattern or a new occurrence, providing valuable insight into the likelihood of his candidacy.
User avatar
anirchat
User avatar
Joined: 30 Jun 2024
Last visit: 14 Nov 2025
Posts: 291
Own Kudos:
44
Given Kudos: 323
Posts: 291
Kudos: 44
Journalist: Well-known businessman Arnold Bergeron has long been popul 22 Nov 2024, 11:02
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
For people wondering why B isn't the answer :

B says Is submitting a list of holdings the only way to fulfill the election commission's financial disclosure requirements?

submitting a list of holdings - If this would rather be "one of the ways" , we could accept this as the answer as then it would mean that he submitted the list not for any other purpose but only for his candidature.
   1   2 
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7443 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
231 posts
miag
189 posts