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

 It is currently 12 Dec 2018, 20:06

### 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

## Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in December
PrevNext
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
2526272829301
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
303112345
Open Detailed Calendar
• ### The winning strategy for 700+ on the GMAT

December 13, 2018

December 13, 2018

08:00 AM PST

09:00 AM PST

What people who reach the high 700's do differently? We're going to share insights, tips and strategies from data we collected on over 50,000 students who used examPAL.
• ### GMATbuster's Weekly GMAT Quant Quiz, Tomorrow, Saturday at 9 AM PST

December 14, 2018

December 14, 2018

09:00 AM PST

10:00 AM PST

10 Questions will be posted on the forum and we will post a reply in this Topic with a link to each question. There are prizes for the winners.

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

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Senior Manager
Joined: 12 Oct 2008
Posts: 453
Last year in the United States, women who ran for state and  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Feb 2009, 16:59
3
14
00:00

Difficulty:

45% (medium)

Question Stats:

68% (01:53) correct 32% (02:03) wrong based on 448 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Last year in the United States, 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. Therefore, 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.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the conclusion given?

(A) Last year the proportion of women incumbents who won reelection was smaller than the proportion of men incumbents who won reelection.
(B) Few women who run for state and national offices run against other women.
(C) Most women who have no strong desire to be politicians never run for state and national offices.
(D) The proportion of people holding local offices who are women is smaller than the proportion of people holding state and national offices who are women.
(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.
Manager
Joined: 10 Jan 2009
Posts: 102
Re: Last year in the United States, women who ran for state and  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Feb 2009, 10:00
5
1
ritula wrote:
Though I find A as the best. but i wanna know wht is wrong with E?

Last year in the United States, 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. Therefore, 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.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the conclusion given?

------------------

Hi ritula,

There's nothing wrong with option E. IMHO, in fact, everything is right with option E.

Premise 1: Last year in the United States, women who ran for state and national offices were about as likely to win as men.

Premise 2: Only about fifteen percent of the candidates for these offices were women.

Conclusion: There are few women who win elections for these offices not because they have difficulty winning elections but because very few of them want to run.

What can we do to weaken the conclusion? We can attack (weaken) either of the following points:
1. not because they have difficulty winning elections
2. but because very few of them want to run

Explanation:

(A) Last year the proportion of women incumbents who won reelection was smaller than the proportion of men incumbents who won reelection. ---> It's more like a Red-Herring. Though, we are talking about election, we are not concerned about what happens during re-election. I have no problem accepting this option as a distraction.

Still if someone is not OK with this explanation, here's for you: I assume the above statement to be true but I would also like to add that the proportion of women incumbents who won normal elections (where no reelection was held) was far greater than the proportion of men incumbents who won normal elections. If this is true, you cannot say that the argument is undermined.

(B) Few women who run for state and national offices run against other women. ---> I found this tricky. One woman competes against another woman but that does not affect the argument. Why?

w.r.t. Point 1: This option does not show why they have difficulty winning elections. Whether a woman fights against a man or a woman, how does it matter? Is she facing difficulty in winning? No!

w.r.t. Point 2: This option only states that few women run for elections but it DOES NOT state why only few of them are interested in contesting elections.

(C) Most women who have no strong desire to be politicians never run for state and national offices. ---> This actually strengthens the conclusion by stating that many of them aren't interested in running for elections.

(D) The proportion of people holding local offices who are women is smaller than the proportion of people holding state and national offices who are women.
---> Irrelevant.

(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. ---> This very clearly attacks (weakens) point 1. Lack of funds for campaigning can be a major factor for someone's defeat in an election.
-----------------------

So, my choice is option E.

Hope that helps.

Regards,
Technext
_________________

+++ Believe me, it doesn't take much of an effort to underline SC questions. Just try it out. +++
+++ Please tell me why other options are wrong. +++

~~~ The only way to get smarter is to play a smarter opponent. ~~~

##### General Discussion
Senior Manager
Joined: 06 Mar 2006
Posts: 457
Re: Last year in the United States, women who ran for state and  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Feb 2009, 19:16
Last year in the United States, 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. Therefore, 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.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the conclusion given?

(A) Last year the proportion of women incumbents who won reelection was smaller than the proportion of men incumbents who won reelection.
(B) Few women who run for state and national offices run against other women.
(C) Most women who have no strong desire to be politicians never run for state and national offices.
(D) The proportion of people holding local offices who are women is smaller than the proportion of people holding state and national offices who are women.
(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.

Answer choice B women run office against other women is irrelevant
C is wrong. This actually strengthen the argument
D is wrong people holding local office is out of scope
E is wrong cannot get adequate funding is irrelevant.

I am going with A
Manager
Joined: 02 Nov 2008
Posts: 234
Re: Last year in the United States, women who ran for state and  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Feb 2009, 21:37
A since it discusses proportions (which essentially means likelihood)
VP
Joined: 18 May 2008
Posts: 1112
Re: Last year in the United States, women who ran for state and  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Feb 2009, 04:15
Though I find A as the best. but i wanna know wht is wrong with E?
Manager
Joined: 04 Jan 2009
Posts: 222
Re: Last year in the United States, women who ran for state and  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Feb 2009, 09:46
ritula wrote:
Though I find A as the best. but i wanna know wht is wrong with E?

In E, the ability to secure funding is talked about. We are not talking about this ability; but just plain ability of women to win elections. Hence, incumbents ran but lost implies to me that it is not for lack of want in women but their ability to win that they lost.
_________________

-----------------------
tusharvk

Retired Moderator
Joined: 18 Jul 2008
Posts: 855
Re: Last year in the United States, women who ran for state and  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Feb 2009, 11:02
My take goes to E. It directly weakens the argument.
Intern
Joined: 09 Jan 2009
Posts: 20
Schools: SDSU
Re: Last year in the United States, women who ran for state and  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Feb 2009, 16:09
My take goes to E. It directly weakens the argument.

My choice is E which raise another reason why few women win election. A is irrlevant, it offers re-election.
VP
Joined: 18 May 2008
Posts: 1112
Re: Last year in the United States, women who ran for state and  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Feb 2009, 20:13
YEssssssssssss......that clearls my doubt. Thanks Technext +1 frm me
Technext wrote:
ritula wrote:
Though I find A as the best. but i wanna know wht is wrong with E?

Last year in the United States, 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. Therefore, 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.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the conclusion given?

------------------

Hi ritula,

There's nothing wrong with option E. IMHO, in fact, everything is right with option E.

Premise 1: Last year in the United States, women who ran for state and national offices were about as likely to win as men.

Premise 2: Only about fifteen percent of the candidates for these offices were women.

Conclusion: There are few women who win elections for these offices not because they have difficulty winning elections but because very few of them want to run.

What can we do to weaken the conclusion? We can attack (weaken) either of the following points:
1. not because they have difficulty winning elections
2. but because very few of them want to run

Explanation:

(A) Last year the proportion of women incumbents who won reelection was smaller than the proportion of men incumbents who won reelection. ---> It's more like a Red-Herring. Though, we are talking about election, we are not concerned about what happens during re-election. I have no problem accepting this option as a distraction.

Still if someone is not OK with this explanation, here's for you: I assume the above statement to be true but I would also like to add that the proportion of women incumbents who won normal elections (where no reelection was held) was far greater than the proportion of men incumbents who won normal elections. If this is true, you cannot say that the argument is undermined.

(B) Few women who run for state and national offices run against other women. ---> I found this tricky. One woman competes against another woman but that does not affect the argument. Why?

w.r.t. Point 1: This option does not show why they have difficulty winning elections. Whether a woman fights against a man or a woman, how does it matter? Is she facing difficulty in winning? No!

w.r.t. Point 2: This option only states that few women run for elections but it DOES NOT state why only few of them are interested in contesting elections.

(C) Most women who have no strong desire to be politicians never run for state and national offices. ---> This actually strengthens the conclusion by stating that many of them aren't interested in running for elections.

(D) The proportion of people holding local offices who are women is smaller than the proportion of people holding state and national offices who are women.
---> Irrelevant.

(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. ---> This very clearly attacks (weakens) point 1. Lack of funds for campaigning can be a major factor for someone's defeat in an election.
-----------------------

So, my choice is option E.

Hope that helps.

Regards,
Technext
Director
Joined: 04 Jan 2008
Posts: 755
Re: Last year in the United States, women who ran for state and  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Feb 2009, 21:37
we have to show
"women have difficulty winning elections"
IMO E

Last year in the United States, 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. Therefore, 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.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the conclusion given?

(A) Last year the proportion of women incumbents who won reelection was smaller than the proportion of men incumbents who won reelection.
(B) Few women who run for state and national offices run against other women.
(C) Most women who have no strong desire to be politicians never run for state and national offices.
(D) The proportion of people holding local offices who are women is smaller than the proportion of people holding state and national offices who are women.
(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.

_________________

http://gmatclub.com/forum/math-polygons-87336.html
http://gmatclub.com/forum/competition-for-the-best-gmat-error-log-template-86232.html

Intern
Joined: 01 Dec 2008
Posts: 38
Re: Last year in the United States, women who ran for state and  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Feb 2009, 02:25
I agree with option E.

We can further significantly undermine option A, which states that the ratio of incumbent women candidates winning reelections is lower compared to their male counterparts.
The incumbent woman candidate may be facing another woman, in this case a woman will still win an election.
Since the woman candidate has lost an election the ratio of incumbent woman candidates reelected to office will decrease.
Nowhere does this option prove that woman are incapable of winning elections or their unwillingness to participate in elections
Director
Joined: 25 Oct 2006
Posts: 551
Re: Last year in the United States, women who ran for state and  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Feb 2009, 03:52
Agree, E it is.....

Nice explanation from Technext.......
_________________

If You're Not Living On The Edge, You're Taking Up Too Much Space

Director
Joined: 25 Oct 2008
Posts: 511
Location: Kolkata,India
Re: Last year in the United States, women who ran for state and  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Aug 2009, 17:57
Guys I didnt understand.
Quote:
What can we do to weaken the conclusion? We can attack (weaken) either of the following points:
1. not because they have difficulty winning elections
2. but because very few of them want to run

Option E is STRENTHENING the second pt.,saying YES very few women run albeit for a different reason.Please explain.
_________________

http://gmatclub.com/forum/countdown-beginshas-ended-85483-40.html#p649902

Senior Manager
Joined: 10 Dec 2008
Posts: 445
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 760 Q49 V44
GPA: 3.9
Re: Last year in the United States, women who ran for state and  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Aug 2009, 20:02
tejal777 wrote:
Option E is STRENTHENING the second pt.,saying YES very few women run albeit for a different reason.Please explain.

You have to read more carefully. The premise states that "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". This directly attacks the argument, which states that women DO NOT want to run. This says that women MAY want to run but of those who DO, at least some CAN'T.
Director
Joined: 05 Jun 2009
Posts: 612
WE 1: 7years (Financial Services - Consultant, BA)
Re: Last year in the United States, women who ran for state and  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Aug 2009, 08:45
Agree with E.

Great detailed explanation from Technext! [+1]

Technext wrote:
What can we do to weaken the conclusion? We can attack (weaken) either of the following points:
1. not because they have difficulty winning elections
2. but because very few of them want to run

for point 1 above, there is already premises stating that last year women were as likely to win as men. IMO, we shouldn't attack the point 1 as there is already a support for the argument in point 1. Only point 2 stands with no support and should be attacked.
_________________

Consider kudos for the good post ...
My debrief : http://gmatclub.com/forum/journey-670-to-720-q50-v36-long-85083.html

Intern
Joined: 13 May 2008
Posts: 7
Re: Last year in the United States, women who ran for state and  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Aug 2009, 10:17
I think the answer is A.

The question asked was "Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the conclusion given?"

The conclusion given was "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."

So something that undermines the conclusion should support either "women have difficulty winning elections" (1) or "the number of women who want to run is not so few" (2) or both.

A shows an evident that even those women who want to run (those running for re-election) had difficulty winning elections as compared to men. So it supports (1).

E didn't support (2), because it only implies that women are more likely to fail to get funding and as a result not run for the state. It doesn't imply that there are more women who want to run than men.
Manager
Status: Berkeley Haas 2013
Joined: 23 Jul 2009
Posts: 185
Re: Last year in the United States, women who ran for state and  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Aug 2009, 08:25
Last year in the United States, 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. Therefore, 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.

I think A undermines this reasoning because it does what bold part says. But conclusion says bold part is not the reason. Hence A undermines the reasoning

E on the other part I think is a Shell Game type answer which makes you believe that it undermines the reasoning.

IMO A

Please someone provide an OA. This is a tricky one. 650+ Level
Manager
Affiliations: CFA Level 2 Candidate
Joined: 29 Jun 2009
Posts: 178
Schools: RD 2: Darden Class of 2012
Re: Last year in the United States, women who ran for state and  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Aug 2009, 09:59
I'm going to back up E but I don't think we are focusing on the correct conclusion.

It's not that women don't win elections (they do at 50%)
It's that woman won't run for politics.

We need to weaken the "but" statement

E does this by addressing that it's not that women won't run it's that they can't run due to not obtaining proper funding to even run in the first place.
Intern
Joined: 06 Jul 2009
Posts: 30
Re: Last year in the United States, women who ran for state and  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Aug 2009, 11:42
IMO A.

conclusion: reason so few women win election is not because difficulty winning elections but so few women want to run.

A only answer that undermines: less women won reelection than men who won relection so more men won reelection, resulting in more men than women in office.

B supports conclusion: women don't want to run against women so fewer women want to run.

C irrelevant: women who don't want to run never runs - only tells us some women don't want to run for office. Conclusion

D irrelevant: conclusion does not compare local office with state and national offices.

E supports conclusion: women don't want to run because they can't secure funding; thus, "so few women want to run".
Manager
Joined: 17 Jul 2009
Posts: 239
Concentration: Nonprofit, Strategy
GPA: 3.42
WE: Engineering (Computer Hardware)
Re: Last year in the United States, women who ran for state and  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Aug 2009, 15:45
E, because it directly refutes the conclusion
Re: Last year in the United States, women who ran for state and &nbs [#permalink] 25 Aug 2009, 15:45

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 27 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by