Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Jul 0808:00 PM PDT
-09:00 PM PDT
Full-length FE mock with insightful analytics, weakness diagnosis, and video explanations!
Jul 0911:00 AM PDT
-12:30 PM PDT
Welcome to the M7 MBA Spotlight Series, featuring MIT Sloan School of Management! This video is part of GMAT Club’s exclusive MBA Spotlight event, where top business schools meet prospective applicants like you.- Jun 30
08:00 AM PDT
-11:59 PM PDT
Join us June 30th for 2 weeks of GMAT questions (just 8 per day) to help with your prep and to compete with your fellow GMAT Clubbers for a chance to win a prize fund of $30,000 for you and your team-mates! - Jul 01
01:00 AM EDT
-11:00 PM EDT
More Target Test Prep students are earning 100th percentile GMAT scores. Don’t settle for less when the Target Test Prep course gives you everything you need to score high on the GMAT. Start your 5-day free trial today. - Jul 08
01:00 AM EDT
-11:00 PM EDT
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep. 
Jul 0809:30 AM EDT
-10:30 AM EDT
Learn how Kamakshi achieved a GMAT 675 with an impressive 96th %ile in Data Insights. Discover the unique methods and exam strategies that helped her excel in DI along with other sections for a balanced and high score.- Jul 08
10:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Did you know that there are test accommodations available for the GMAT exam? Not enough people do! In this informative video, Jason Northrup, GMAC’s Senior Manager for Testing Accommodations, joins GMAT Ninja founder Charles Bibilos - Jul 08
11:30 AM EDT
-01:30 PM EDT
An interactive 2-hour class by Aditya Kumar to Establish clear structures & guidelines to enhance your decision-making and improve your speed and accuracy in Algebra. - Jul 10
11:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
In our conversation, Kishore talks about how strategically he used data analytics to identify high impact areas to focus on as well as his early morning study routine (3 AM prep!) that optimized his GMAT preparation. 
Jul 1211:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this session to learn how to Deconstruct arguments, Pre-Think Author’s Assumptions, and apply Negation Test.
Jul 1311:00 AM EDT
-12:30 PM EDT
Looking for your GMAT motivation to break through the score plateau? Pragati improved her score by massive 160 points with strategic guidance and hard-work! Find out how personalized mentorship and a strong mindset can turn GMAT struggles into success.- Jul 15
08:00 PM PDT
-09:00 PM PDT
Full-length FE mock with insightful analytics, weakness diagnosis, and video explanations!
E
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
35%
(medium)
Question Stats:
73% (01:57) correct
27%
(02:04)
wrong
based on 2265
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
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.
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.
24 Feb 2009, 11:00
Kudos
Bookmarks
ritula
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
08 May 2015, 17:22
Kudos
Bookmarks
The answer is definitely E.
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.
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.
