GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 20 May 2019, 17:42

### 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

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

# Last year in the United States, women who ran for state and

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Intern
Joined: 15 Mar 2008
Posts: 40
Re: Last year in the United States, women who ran for state and  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Aug 2009, 06:53
E weakens the argument the most.
It says that the women want to run but lack of funds for their campaigns keeps them from running for elections. So, it is not the will of the women that is responsible for their lower numbers, as the stimulus suggests, but it is some other reason.
GMAT Tutor
Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 1518
Re: Last year in the United States, women who ran for state and  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 May 2015, 17:22

It's important to note here that the question tells us in the stem that: Last year in the United States, women who ran for state and national offices were about as likely to win as men. This is a premise of the argument - it absolutely cannot be wrong. It's always an error to try to disprove a premise in GMAT CR, because premises are absolute facts. I gather answer A might seem appealing because it suggests that women are not actually as good as men at winning elections. But we know as an absolute fact here that women are just as good as men at winning elections. If answer A is true, and fewer women incumbents win, then it absolutely must be true that more first-time woman candidates win than men, because that's the only way it could be true that women win as often as men.

So A is not the right answer. The key is to focus on the right part of the conclusion. The conclusion says, in part: the reason there are so few women who win elections is ... that so few women want to run. Whether women want to run for these offices is not mentioned anywhere in the stem, and there could be lots of reasons women do not run, even though they very much want to. Perhaps they lack party support, or funding, or face other obstacles that men do not face. That's why E is the best answer here.
_________________
GMAT Tutor in Toronto

If you are looking for online GMAT math tutoring, or if you are interested in buying my advanced Quant books and problem sets, please contact me at ianstewartgmat at gmail.com
Manager
Joined: 06 Jul 2011
Posts: 86
Re: Last year in the United States, women who ran for state and  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 May 2015, 17:48
1
IanStewart - thanks for looking into this. Here is what I thought -

Premise - "women who ran for state and national offices were about as likely to win as men" - Fact # 1

The conclusion says that - "the reason there are so few women who win elections for these offices is not that women have difficulty winning elections but that so few women want to run" --> women don't want to run else they will win.

Now option (E)Many more women than men who want to run for state and national offices do not because they cannot get adequate funding for their campaigns.

At best this option is Irrelevant because this is pointing to a different problem as to why women can't run.They want to but they can't because of funding issue. I thought the issues at hand are only two -

a)want to run;
b)winnability

However,option (A) says that women ran but they lost. - Agreed that this is refuting the premise,but this is a better one between A and E.
GMAT Tutor
Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 1518
Re: Last year in the United States, women who ran for state and  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 May 2015, 05:10
1
arkle wrote:
At best this option is Irrelevant because this is pointing to a different problem as to why women can't run.They want to but they can't because of funding

But this is exactly what you often want to do, when trying to weaken the conclusion of a GMAT CR argument. You often want to find an alternative explanation for the facts. Here, the conclusion is "women don't want to run in elections". The argument is just guessing that's true (it doesn't give any evidence about whether women want to run for office). The conclusion is one possible explanation for the facts in the stem. But if we had an alternative explanation for the facts in the stem, that would weaken the conclusion. And that's what E does. If E is true, that gives us a reason different from the one in the conclusion why women do not run for office. It's not because they don't want to; it's because they cannot secure funding.
_________________
GMAT Tutor in Toronto

If you are looking for online GMAT math tutoring, or if you are interested in buying my advanced Quant books and problem sets, please contact me at ianstewartgmat at gmail.com
Current Student
Joined: 28 Nov 2014
Posts: 840
Concentration: Strategy
Schools: Fisher '19 (M\$)
GPA: 3.71
Re: Last year in the United States, women who ran for state and  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 Sep 2015, 01:43
– We have to weaken the following
1) Women don’t have the difficulty in winning the elections
2) Few Women want to run
So we will STRENGTHEN the following –
1) Women have difficulty winning the elections
2) It is NOT that a few women want to run. A lot of women wants to run.

Option E hits the nail. Satisfies part (2) of Strengthen case.
Manager
Joined: 08 Jan 2018
Posts: 217
Location: United States (ID)
GPA: 3.33
WE: Accounting (Accounting)
Re: Last year in the United States, women who ran for state and  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Feb 2018, 10:17
I do not think official questions will have such question b/c of its ambiguity.
Clearly, both A and E are common patterns, and the pattern in E is about the cause or reason why sth happens. Such pattern is out of scope.
Nevertheless, unless in A, "reellection" also means "win an office" -> A just repeats the argument.

Another way to see E is that the argument talks about women who run for office and E talks abut women who do not run for the office. However, such viewpoint still does not give replace the other reason why few women who win election.
Senior Manager
Joined: 14 Feb 2018
Posts: 390
Re: Last year in the United States, women who ran for state and  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Mar 2018, 00:49
I would go for E, because as opposed to the argument option E gives an alternative reason as to why women have a small proportion of seats.

Thus, the argument is undermined.

Sent from my Lenovo K53a48 using GMAT Club Forum mobile app
Manager
Joined: 03 Dec 2018
Posts: 186
Re: Last year in the United States, women who ran for state and  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Mar 2019, 08:31
How do we eliminate option A and B?
What if there was an answer choice stating many women who run for state and national offices run against each other? Could this weaken?
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Status: GMAT and GRE tutor
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 2484
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
Re: Last year in the United States, women who ran for state and  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

11 Apr 2019, 10:06
mallya12 wrote:
How do we eliminate option A and B?
What if there was an answer choice stating many women who run for state and national offices run against each other? Could this weaken?

The question asks us to undermine the author's conclusion, so let's take another look at that conclusion: "the reason there are so few women who win elections for these offices is not that women have difficulty winning elections but that so few women want to run."

The evidence cited to reach this conclusion is:
• "...women who ran for state and national offices were about as likely to win as men."
• "However, only about fifteen percent of the candidates for these offices were women."

Take a look at (A):
Quote:
(A) Last year the proportion of women incumbents who won reelection was smaller than the proportion of men incumbents who won reelection.

From the passage, we know that overall, women who run for state and national offices are as likely to win as men are. This answer choice just tells us that a certain subset of women -- incumbents, or those who are already in office -- are less likely to win an election than are their male counterparts. So, the difference in results for incumbents must somehow be made up by the results of other elections.

This information does not change the fact that only fifteen percent of candidates for office are women, or undermine the author's conclusion that there are so few women in office because "so few women want to run." This information is irrelevant to the author's conclusion, so we can eliminate (A).

Quote:
(B) Few women who run for state and national offices run against other women.

Answer choice (B) tells us that most elections pit a female candidate against a male candidate. If this were true, it wouldn't change the fact that very few women run, and that women are about as likely as men to win in an election. (B) does not undermine the author's conclusion.

Now, look at (E):
Quote:
(E) Many more women than men who want to run for state and national offices do not because they cannot get adequate funding for their campaigns.

Here we go -- this one clearly undermines the conclusion that so few women are in office because they don't want to run. Answer choice (E) tells us that many women do, in fact, want to run, but cannot get adequate funding for their campaigns. This destroys the author's conclusion, so (E) is our answer.

I hope that helps!
_________________
GMAT Club Verbal Expert | GMAT/GRE tutor @ www.gmatninja.com (Now hiring!) | Instagram | Food blog | Notoriously bad at PMs

Beginners' guides to GMAT verbal
Reading Comprehension | Critical Reasoning | Sentence Correction

Series 1: Fundamentals of SC & CR | Series 2: Developing a Winning GMAT Mindset

SC & CR Questions of the Day (QOTDs), featuring expert explanations
All QOTDs | Subscribe via email | RSS

Hit the request verbal experts' reply button -- and please be specific about your question. Feel free to tag @GMATNinja in your post. Priority is always given to official GMAT questions.

Sentence Correction articles & resources
How to go from great (760) to incredible (780) on GMAT SC | That "-ing" Word Probably Isn't a Verb | That "-ed" Word Might Not Be a Verb, Either | No-BS Guide to GMAT Idioms | "Being" is not the enemy | WTF is "that" doing in my sentence?

Reading Comprehension, Critical Reasoning, and other articles & resources
All GMAT Ninja articles on GMAT Club | Using LSAT for GMAT CR & RC |7 reasons why your actual GMAT scores don't match your practice test scores | How to get 4 additional "fake" GMAT Prep tests for \$29.99 | Time management on verbal
Re: Last year in the United States, women who ran for state and   [#permalink] 11 Apr 2019, 10:06

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 29 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by