Mr. Janeck: I don't believe Stevenson will win the election for govern

Question

Mr. Janeck: I don't believe Stevenson will win the election for governor. Few voters are willing to elect a businessman with no political experience to such a responsible public office.

Ms. Siuzdak: You're wrong. The experience of running a major corporation is a valuable preparation for the task of running a state government.

M. Siuzdak's response shows that she has interpreted Mr. Janeck's remark to imply which of the following?

A. Mr. Janeck considers Stevenson unqualified for the office of governor.
B. No candidate without political experience has ever been elected governor of a state.
C. Mr. Janeck believes that political leadership and business leadership are closely analogous.
D. A career spent in the pursuit of profit can be an impediment to one's ability to run a state government fairly.
E. Voters generally overestimate the value of political experience when selecting a candidate.

KarishmaB · Accepted Answer

It is a good idea to first read the question stem. It prepares you to analyze the stimulus according to the question. Plus, in a complicated question, you don't have to go back and read the entire stimulus again.

Here I first read the question: Ms. Siuzdak’s response shows that she has interpreted Mr. Janeck’s remark to imply which of the following?
I see there are two speakers. I know that Ms. Siuzdak interprets Mr. Janeck’s remark to imply something. Great, lets go ahead and read the stimulus.

Mr Janeck talks about the unwillingness of voters to elect a businessman without political experience to such a position.

Ms Siuzdak says, "You are wrong." and goes on to elaborate how experience of running a business prepares one to run the government.

When I read Ms. Siuzdak's response, I think, "She is interpreting an implication in Mr Janeck's remark. What is it?"
It does strike me as odd that he only mentioned how voters feel. He did not say that Stevenson was unsuitable for office while Ms. Siuzdak tries to convince him why Stevenson is suitable. She doesn't say something like, "You are wrong.  Voters understand that  the experience of running a major corporation is a valuable preparation for the task of running a state government."

Now I look at the options. It is pretty clear that she interpreted that Mr Janeck believes Stevenson is not suitable for office. (A) is the correct answer.
(D) is incorrect. The issue is experience here. Not how profit chasing affects the character of a person and makes him unsuitable for government office.
(E) is incorrect because she overlooked voters completely and responded to Mr Janeck as if he had said the following: "A businessman with no political experience should not be elected to such a responsible public office."

KarishmaB · Answer

It's kind of an inference question (not conclusion though, inference as we know it in RC). You have to infer what Ms S inferred from Mr J's statement.

Say, forget Mr J's statement. Think of only Ms S's statement.

Ms S says 'You are wrong. Running a business prepares you for running a state.'

What do you think someone would have said to make Ms S reply like this? Something on the lines of 'Running a business doesn't prepare you for running a state.' Right?

So Ms. S inferred that Mr J is saying that Stevenson will not win the election because running a business hasn't taught him how to run a state. i.e. option (A)

Also whether (E) is an assumption of Mr J's argument - 
Look at Mr J argument closely:
Mr. Janeck: I don’t believe Stevenson will win the election for governor. Few voters are willing to elect a businessman with no political experience to such a responsible public office.

Premise: Few voters are willing to elect a businessman with no political experience to such a responsible public office. (Premises are assumed to be true)

Conclusion: I don’t believe Stevenson will win the election for governor.

Assumption: No one can win an election with few votes.
(An assumption links the stimulus with the conclusion)

Mr J doesn't make any assumptions about voters - do they overestimate political experience, underestimate business experience etc.

imhimanshu · Answer

Hi Karishma,

Request you to explain the question stem. Is it Inference question or Method of Reasoning?

Also, Can we say that Option E would have been correct if question had asked for the assumption that Mr Janeck's argument making?
Thanks
H

rahulajith · Answer

I would have definitely gone with A if 'unqualified' was not the word. unqualified is too strong a word. Ms Siuzdak does not feel Mr Janeck thinks something disqualifies him from contesting for the office. Nothing disqualifies him. Its just that voters will feel he is incompetent to run a state

But I guess the OA is A.

KarishmaB · Answer

These are two different words:

Unqualified - One does not have the required qualifications e.g. required education, experience etc. One could participate say, in elections, even if people think one is unqualified if there are no rules requiring particular qualification.

Disqualified - One did not stick to the rules of the game and hence got disqualified e.g. for doping or slandering etc. One cannot participate after getting disqualified.

This question uses the word 'unqualified'.

MBAPrepCoach · Answer

Rohitbhsya, the basic thing to realize here is that she says nobody will vote for someone without any *political* experience where is he responds that they will vote for someone with *business* experience.

So he's basically interpreting what she's saying as *experience* instead of *political experience.* The closest paraphase of this is that he believes she is stating that the candidate is *unqualified.* as in A.

She's not saying he's unqualified... she's just saying that voters are not going to vote for someone without political experience.

D is saying that he understood her as saying that having a business career is going to stop him from running a government in an equitable manner.

That claim is not vague at all it's quite specific and quite unfounded, especially when we deal fairness into the situation.

In sum, there's no one saying that a business career is going to keep him from doing a good job.

She's merely pointing out that the lack of political experience is going to keep him from being voteable.

The more specific the claim the more likelihood it is untrue and that is the case here. I hope this helps!

Farrell Dyan Hehn, MBA
Admissions Consultant & Verbal Strategist MBAPrepCoach.com

roadrunner · Answer

Mr. Janeck: I don’t believe Stevenson will win the election for governor. Few voters are willing to elect a businessman with no political experience to such a responsible public office. 
Ms. Siuzdak: You’re wrong. The experience of running a major corporation is a valuable preparation for the task of running a state government.

M. Siuzdak’s response shows that she has interpreted Mr. Janeck’s remark to imply which of the following?
(A) Mr. Janeck considers Stevenson unqualified for the office of governor.  Correct 
(B) No candidate without political experience has ever been elected governor of a state. OOS 
(C) Mr. Janeck believes that political leadership and business leadership are closely analogous. Mr. Janeck doesn't compare both domains. 
(D) A career spent in the pursuit of profit can be an impediment to one’s ability to run a state government fairly. We don't know reasoning behind people's preference.  
(E) Voters generally overestimate the value of political experience when selecting a candidate We don't know whether voter's underestimate or overestimate the value of political experience. No info provided to make such claim.

Tracy95 · Answer

By POE I arrive at (A)

B. No candidate without political experience has ever been elected governor of a state. => There is no mention about background of past governors of state so we cannot say for sure that NO candidate w/o political experience has ever been elected . 
C. Mr. Janeck believes that political leadership and business leadership are closely analogous. => This is completely opposite to what Mr. Janeck believes
D. A career spent in the pursuit of profit can be an impediment to oneâ€™s ability to run a state government fairly. => "A career spent in the pursuit of profit" is irrelevant here as they are talking about a businessman. Also, Janeck just doesn't believe Stevenson will win the election because few voters will favor a businessman with no political experience. He doesn't at all say either the business background or the career spent in the pursuit of profit is a barrier. 
E. Voters generally overestimate the value of political experience when selecting a candidate. => "voters ... overstimate" is out of scope

So, we are left with (A) Mr. Janeck considers Stevenson unqualified for the office of governor.
This might seem obvious at first. But actually I think this is an easy inference from Mr Janeck's statement.

Archit3110 · Answer

IMO A: is correct
Mr. Janeck considers Stevenson unqualified for the office of governor.

Mr. Janeck: I don't believe Stevenson will win the election for governor. Few voters are willing to elect a businessman with no political experience to such a responsible public office.

Ms. Siuzdak: You're wrong. The experience of running a major corporation is a valuable preparation for the task of running a state government.

M. Siuzdak's response shows that she has interpreted Mr. Janeck's remark to imply which of the following?

A. Mr. Janeck considers Stevenson unqualified for the office of governor.
B. No candidate without political experience has ever been elected governor of a state.
C. Mr. Janeck believes that political leadership and business leadership are closely analogous.
D. A career spent in the pursuit of profit can be an impediment to oneâ€™s ability to run a state government fairly.
E. Voters generally overestimate the value of political experience when selecting a candidate.

eakabuah · Answer

The right answer is option A.

Mr. Janeck: I don't believe Stevenson will win the election for governor. Few voters are willing to elect a businessman with no political experience to such a responsible public office.

Ms. Siuzdak: You're wrong. The experience of running a major corporation is a valuable preparation for the task of running a state government.

From the response of Ms. Siuzdak, in which she concluded that Mr. Janeck is wrong. In her justification, she points out that running a major corporation is a valuable preparation for the task of running a state government. Since the voters that Mr. Janeck refers to as unwilling to vote for a businessman without political experience are not available to listen to her argument, her points are obviously directed at him. The fact that the focus of her argument is to point out that Stevenson's experience as a businessman is vital, she assumes that Mr. Janeck does not believe that Stevenson is qualified for the office of a governor.

Option A says that Mr. Janeck considers Stevenson unqualified for the office of governor and this is in line with the above. Hence A has to be the interpretation that Ms. Siuzdak has for the comments of Mr. Janeck.

brianmontanaweb · Answer

We can rightfully assume that Mr Janeck is implying that a lack of political experience is why Steven shouldn't be elected. Siuzdak then reinforces the qualifications of Stevens as a businessman to be good enough for political office.

I picked A right away without taking much time to eliminate the others.

B was too broad.

C is the opposite of what Janeck implied.

D is out of scope.

E is out of scope.

rsvelc · Answer

Yes I eliminated answer A for the very same reason. Mr.Janeck never personally felt that Stevenson is underqualified, also he provided reason why he believe Stevenson can't win the election since few voters are willing to elect businessman, hence immediately eliminated this answer and went with Option C, because this clearly explains why Mr.Janeck thinks it's obvious that businessman will stand a chance because him/voters believe that Business and Political experience are similar and comparable and him/voters wouldn't care less if contestant had either of the experience. But eventually after going through the thread understood Ms.Siuzdak, didn't specifically mention the word "Voters" in her statement intending her explanation solely for Mr.Janeck.

KarishmaB Please help me understand how I can improve my view towards the argument here and avoid missing the subtle difference.

KarishmaB  Please help me understand how I can improve my view towards the argument here and avoid missing the subtle difference.

KarishmaB · Answer

You have to read the question stem very properly:

Q stem: M. Siuzdak’s response shows that she has interpreted Mr. Janeck’s remark to imply which of the following?

Her response shows that she thinks that Mr. Janeck's remark "implies" (so doesn't say it outright) which of the following.

M. Siuzdak says, "You are wrong. Running a major corp helps one learn how to run the govt." This shows that she thought that Janeck is saying that Stevenson is not qualified. So she thinks that Janeck's remark implies that Stevenson is not qualified. And that is option (A).

It all comes down to reading the question stem very properly.

SnorLax_7 · Answer

Hi  KarishmaB 
 
To me ' A career spent in the pursuit of profit' means person who spends his whole career for profit and has no political experience. with that, she interpreted Option D and made her response.
where am I wrong ? Kindly help ?

KarishmaB · Answer

You have to understand what is implied and what is not.

Had she interpreted that Janeck has said "A career spent in the pursuit of profit can be an impediment to one’s ability to run a state government fairly," she would have responded with something like:

" You're wrong. Running a business does not infringe on one's ability to be fair. A businessman needs to learn to be fair if he needs to be profitable. etc."

There is no discussion on "ability to run a govt fairly" in the argument. The entire discussion is only about whether one is qualified/has the required experience.

sameeb · Answer

What is the source of this question please?

Bunuel · Answer

The source is 1000 Series questions, which means old GMAT questions. https://gmatclub.com/forum/download/file.php?id=84273 GMAT-Club-Forum-a5nhs208.png

Mr. Janeck: I don't believe Stevenson will win the election for govern

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

Mr. Janeck: I don't believe Stevenson will win the election for govern

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