“Government” does not exist as an independent entity defining policy.

Question

Which of the following best completes the passage below?

“Government” does not exist as an independent entity defining policy. Instead there exists a group of democratically elected pragmatists sensitive to the electorate, who establish policies that will result in their own reelection. Therefore, if public policy is hostile to, say, environmental concerns, it is not because of governmental perversity but because elected officials believe that ______.

(A) environmentalists would be extremely difficult to satisfy with any policy, however environmentally sound

(B) environmental concerns are being accommodated as well as public funds permit

(C) the public is overly anxious about environmental deterioration

(D) the majority of voters vote for certain politicians because of those politicians’ idiosyncratic positions on policy issues

(E) the majority of voters do not strongly wish for a different policy

KarishmaB · Accepted Answer

- “Government” does not exist as an independent entity defining policy. 
- People in Govt are sensitive to the electorate. They establish policies that will result in their own reelection.

Conclusion: So, if public policy is hostile to, say, environmental concerns, it is not because of governmental perversity but because elected officials believe that ______.

The argument tells us that the govt does what it feels people will support, what people want (so that people reelect them next time).

What is logical then? If the govt is hostile to environment concerns, it is because it believes that people don't care about the environment. It believes that changing the policy will not go down well with people and then they may not reelect this govt.

Option (E) tells us this.

(D) the majority of voters vote for certain politicians because of those politicians’ idiosyncratic positions on policy issues
First of all, we don't know what the "idiosyncratic positions" are. Are they pro env or against, we don't know. So it doesn't explain why the govt is hostile to environment concerns. And in any case, the argument does not imply that voters vote for politicians based on their positions on policy issues. The argument tells us that the politicians behave as per what they expect people want.

akashb106 · Answer

I will try and give a detailed explanation of the answer choices and why the answer is E.

The argument says Politicians establish those policies that can get them re-elected. Then the fill in the blank is supposed to be a reason why the government officials not made any policy on environmental concerns... 
Like you said, they care about what people think because in the end they will the one who votes for them. (So public does not want the policy)

(A) environmentalists would be extremely difficult to satisfy with any policy, however environmentally sound----  Incorrect because environmentalists are only a small part of the public. Environmentalists cannot be satisfied but what percent of the public are the environmentalists? 
(B) environmental concerns are being accommodated as well as public funds permit---- Out of scope. 
(C) the public is overly anxious about environmental deterioration----  This contradicts the arguments. If the public is concerned, then the government officials would be making the policies on environmental concerns, but since the policy on environmental concerns is hostile it is not what the public wants.  
(D) the majority of voters vote for certain politicians because of those politicians’ idiosyncratic positions on policy issues----  Politicians idiosyncratic position on policy issues. This is just a lot of difficult words to comprehend and does not give an idea on why are government officals not concerned about the environment.  
(E) the majority of voters do not strongly wish for a different policy----  Correct, because if the public does not wish for a different policy then the government will follow what they want. Hence the environmental policies are not being made.

A tough one. Used a bit of reasoning and POE to get to E. But hopefully it is of some help to you.

mojorising800 · Answer

A and E are the most relevant to the argument.I choose E because of the argument put fwd in the preceding sentence "who establish policies that will result in their own reelection".Thus if a policy is hostile to a certain group then it means that the majority does not wish for the policy , as if it were the case that the majority wishes for the a favorable policy then it would have been implemented.
I hope i did not complicate things.

sasen · Answer

A) environmentalists would be extremely difficult to satisfy with any policy, however environmentally sound
doesnt say why a certain policy is more adhered to
(B) environmental concerns are being accommodated as well as public funds permit
doesnot reason out why a particular policy is being oursued
(C) the public is overly anxious about environmental deterioration
contradcits the reasoning
(D) the majority of voters vote for certain politicians because of those politicians’ idiosyncratic positions on policy issues
CORRECT..thought the positions are idiosyncratic and crazy,these politicinas donot chnage the poisitions and hence
the policies because of their assumtion .
(E) the majority of voters do not strongly wish for a different policy
this sounds close but somehow "DONOT WISH STRONGLY" doesnot really map well to the assumtions of the politicns about what would get them back to power.
IMO D

pjalan · Answer

I think e as it would not jeopardize reelection. c is my second choice

ykaiim · Answer

IMO E. My 2 cents:

1. Whenever I face such CRs in which an example is quoted to explain a phenomenon then usually all the choices mentioning that example are INCORRECT.

2. As per the argument. These politicians are interested in their re-election. How?
If the electorate is unhappy with the the stated policy then they will oppose to it and in that case these politicians will loose chances to get re-elected. So, it must be the lazy voters.

pkshankar · Answer

Government consists of member of parliament who are sensitive to public issues and would in all likelihood make policies that cater to public needs in order to ensure re-election or no anti-incumbency. 
The passage then goes on to say that if a policy is hostile to environmental concerns then its not because that the government is indifferent towards environmental groups/activists but rather the majority of the public feels the same way as the government does and in order to ensure re-election the government of the day must keep the public happy.
Hence the answer is E.

KaranB1 · Answer

GMATNinja   chiranjeev

Could you please help me to eliminate D

KaranB1 · Answer

VeritasKarishma

Bunuel

Could you please help me to eliminate D

Suneha123 · Answer

From the argument, we can infer that elected people would make policies which result in their re-election & for that they have to entice the voters & make policies which align with their voters' interests. So, we can say that this hostile is in fact made because voters wanted such a policy.

(A) environmentalists would be extremely difficult to satisfy with any policy, however environmentally sound
We can't infer anything about the environmentalists

(B) environmental concerns are being accommodated as well as public funds permit
Irrelevant

(C) the public is overly anxious about environmental deterioration
If at all this might go against the reasoning that policy makers makes policies to get re-elected. This, in fact says that hostile policy is thus, made for government's interests.

(D) the majority of voters vote for certain politicians because of those politicians’ idiosyncratic positions on policy issues
We do not know what are idiosyncratic positions, that is, it can be in favour of hostile policy or against it. Also, we can infer something which must be true from the argument. This option states about voters' voting behaviour about which we can't comment on the basis of the given argument. There can be several other reasons for voters to vote.

(E) the majority of voters do not strongly wish for a different policy
On point.

singd · Answer

Hi Experts , I have a few question regarding this one

1)I had the impression that option E was wrong because E uses the words ' Not strongly', Implying that the majority had a wish ( not very strong) for the policy to be changed. This causes some confusion.

2) I am not able to understand why option D is wrong here because option D suggests that voters vote for a politician if he has the same stand on a policy as do the people. This along the lines of what the blank expects

3) I also have a question about the interpretation of option D. 
Does it mean " The majority of voters 'who' vote for...' or The majority of voters in general.

Thanks

mSKR · Answer

Which of the following best completes the passage below?

“Government” does not exist as an independent entity defining policy. Instead there exists a group of democratically elected pragmatists sensitive to the electorate, who establish policies  that will result in their own reelection . Therefore, if public policy is hostile to, say, environmental concerns, it is not because of governmental perversity but because elected officials believe that ______.

in Summary,
 elected pragmatists don't want to set policies that doesn't go against public. Why ? Else it would result in reelection.
environmental concerns and public policy are not in line with each other. Then what government official should do?
They should do what public wants or not against them.--This is what E option says.
(E) the majority of voters do not strongly wish for a different policy

(D) the majority of voters vote for certain politicians because of those politicians’ idiosyncratic positions on policy issues
D says: Voters vote because of politicians policies. but such point is not mentioned in argument.
Argument happens If X happen Y will happen 
X-> set policy 
Y-relection ( favouring users--not set something against public)
D says something backhand not discussed . Why users elect these politicians?
What if after elected , they change their mind /policy then this would weakn the argument. 
Thats why D is not correct. 
D is talking somethign not required for strengthening the argument.

I hope it is clear.

Basshead · Answer

Which of the following best completes the passage below?

“Government” does not exist as an independent entity defining policy. Instead there exists a group of democratically elected pragmatists sensitive to the electorate, who establish policies that will result in their own reelection. Therefore, if public policy is hostile to, say, environmental concerns, it is not because of governmental perversity but because elected officials believe that ______.

To summarize:

- We have a group of elected people in the government
- These people want to establish policies that are popular in order to help their own reelection chances

So given the above information, if we have a public policy that is opposed to environmental concerns, what can we conclude?

The public policy that is opposed to environmental concerns  MUST  be a policy that most voters support. E gets at this point and is the correct answer.

gmatimothy · Answer

Raman109 · Answer

Understanding the argument - Politicians (sensitive to the electorate) establish policies that will result in their reelection. So, if the public policy is hostile to environmental concerns, it's because its a reflection of what voters want. The politicians don't want to go against what voters want and jeopardize their re-election. That is what E does.

(A) environmentalists would be extremely difficult to satisfy with any policy, however environmentally sound - Out of scope
 
(B) environmental concerns are being accommodated as well as public funds permit - out of scope

(C) the public is overly anxious about environmental deterioration- the opposite of what we are looking for.

(D) the majority of voters vote for certain politicians because of those politicians’ idiosyncratic positions on policy issues. The argument doesn't talk about people voting for politicians because of their XYZ positions on issues. It says politicians make policies that are a reflection of what voters want. At best this is out of scope.

(E) the majority of voters do not strongly wish for a different policy - perfect.

VerbalBot · Answer

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

“Government” does not exist as an independent entity defining policy.

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

“Government” does not exist as an independent entity defining policy.

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