Last visit was: 12 Dec 2024, 07:35 It is currently 12 Dec 2024, 07:35
Close
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
Your Progress

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
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
User avatar
rdg
Joined: 09 Jan 2007
Last visit: 21 Aug 2007
Posts: 137
Own Kudos:
100
 [71]
Posts: 137
Kudos: 100
 [71]
7
Kudos
Add Kudos
64
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Most Helpful Reply
User avatar
pqhai
User avatar
Retired Moderator
Joined: 16 Jun 2012
Last visit: 26 Nov 2015
Posts: 868
Own Kudos:
8,711
 [18]
Given Kudos: 123
Location: United States
Posts: 868
Kudos: 8,711
 [18]
13
Kudos
Add Kudos
5
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
VeritasPrepBrandon
User avatar
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 23 Oct 2013
Last visit: 07 Jun 2016
Posts: 143
Own Kudos:
897
 [14]
Given Kudos: 9
Expert reply
Posts: 143
Kudos: 897
 [14]
13
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
General Discussion
User avatar
nervousgmat
User avatar
Current Student
Joined: 06 Feb 2007
Last visit: 08 Dec 2009
Posts: 930
Own Kudos:
267
 [3]
Products:
Posts: 930
Kudos: 267
 [3]
3
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
I would go with B.
I was debating between A and B for a while but think that B addresses the points that a paragraph makes better than A does.
B actually addresses the statement "legislation important to the general welfare of Country W" while A only addresses a concern of a Party C minister about legislation proposed by his own party as opposed to the importance of the legislation for the country.
User avatar
mattce
Joined: 03 Jun 2013
Last visit: 08 Jan 2016
Posts: 69
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 3
Status:Training
Location: Canada
GPA: 3.7
Products:
Posts: 69
Kudos: 585
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Bump...

Can't anyone please clarify why A is wrong?

I understand why B is correct; and might even agree that it could possibly be better than A... But I don't understand why A is incorrect.

.. Or is A correct but just less correct than B?

Any clarification would be great :)
User avatar
Nevernevergiveup
User avatar
Retired Moderator
Joined: 18 Sep 2014
Last visit: 20 Aug 2023
Posts: 1,010
Own Kudos:
2,880
 [4]
Given Kudos: 79
Location: India
Products:
Posts: 1,010
Kudos: 2,880
 [4]
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
2
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Multi-party initiatives are becoming increasingly popular among the members of the parliament of Country W. Although legislation proposed under the auspices of more than one party may not adhere as strictly to the agenda of each of the parties involved as legislation proposed by only one party, the political backing of the voting blocs represented by the cooperating parties make such proposals more likely to pass than proposals that come from a single faction alone. The benefit of multi-party initiatives is that legislation important to the general welfare of Country W that might otherwise have foundered in inter-party disagreements can effectively be enacted.

Quote:
Which of the following statements by a minister of Party C in the government of Country W is most consistent with the beliefs of an individual political party in the situation described above?

what does he refer when he said individual political party, is it a part of Multi-party initiatives(Left hand side of the table) or individual party(Right hand side of the table) on its own?
Since the argument referred to the latter one as single faction alone I understand individual party in above situation refers to one of the multi-parties.


Attachment:
2.jpg
2.jpg [ 53.28 KiB | Viewed 14247 times ]

A) "Our party would rather compromise on some of our issues and also see other parties compromise on their issues than run the risk of not having legislation that we propose pass."
Nowhere it is mentioned that the party will see that other parties issues are compromised. Also no such risk is mentioned in the argument

B) "Our party would rather give up a few minor points of ideology than risk having the issues important to our constituents not be addressed as a result of the government's inability to pass any new laws. "
So their prominence is to pass legislation important to the general welfare of Country W that might otherwise have foundered in inter-party disagreements can effectively be enacted.

C) "Our party would rather participate in an environment that fosters inter-party cooperation than persist in constant conflict with other parties."
It is true that Party cooperates but it is not mentioned that it does so to avoid conflict. Their goal is to pass legislation that do some welfare to state.

D) "Our party would rather have other parties join in support of our legislation than join in supporting the proposals of other parties."
This is something which goes completely awry and cannot be inferred at all. This is contradictory to the argument—both parties seem to give and take equally in a multi-party initiative in the argument.

E) "Our party would rather have our proposals passed because they represent what is best for the welfare of our country than to become engaged in the agendas of other parties."
As per argument they say that they compromise for welfare and nowhere it is mentioned that only their proposal do welfare to the country and especially it is mentioned they have to compromise regarding their individual agendas. This negates the premises.
avatar
rukna
Joined: 11 Feb 2015
Last visit: 10 Apr 2017
Posts: 66
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 70
GMAT 1: 710 Q48 V38
GMAT 1: 710 Q48 V38
Posts: 66
Kudos: 120
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Need clarification b.w A and B. Still not clear.
User avatar
Nevernevergiveup
User avatar
Retired Moderator
Joined: 18 Sep 2014
Last visit: 20 Aug 2023
Posts: 1,010
Own Kudos:
2,880
 [2]
Given Kudos: 79
Location: India
Products:
Posts: 1,010
Kudos: 2,880
 [2]
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
rukna
Need clarification b.w A and B. Still not clear.

A) "Our party would rather compromise on some of our issues and also see other parties compromise on their issues than run the risk of not having legislation that we propose pass."
Nowhere it is mentioned that the party will see that other parties issues are compromised. Also no such risk is mentioned in the argument

B) "Our party would rather give up a few minor points of ideology than risk having the issues important to our constituents not be addressed as a result of the government's inability to pass any new laws. "
So their prominence is to pass legislation important to the general welfare of Country W that might otherwise have foundered in inter-party disagreements can effectively be enacted.

rukna

A contains few new information which is a strict no-no for inference questions.
I hope this clears the air.
User avatar
mvictor
User avatar
Board of Directors
Joined: 17 Jul 2014
Last visit: 14 Jul 2021
Posts: 2,136
Own Kudos:
1,219
 [1]
Given Kudos: 236
Location: United States (IL)
Concentration: Finance, Economics
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V30
GPA: 3.92
WE:General Management (Transportation)
Products:
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V30
Posts: 2,136
Kudos: 1,219
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Nevernevergiveup
Multi-party initiatives are becoming increasingly popular among the members of the parliament of Country W. Although legislation proposed under the auspices of more than one party may not adhere as strictly to the agenda of each of the parties involved as legislation proposed by only one party, the political backing of the voting blocs represented by the cooperating parties make such proposals more likely to pass than proposals that come from a single faction alone. The benefit of multi-party initiatives is that legislation important to the general welfare of Country W that might otherwise have foundered in inter-party disagreements can effectively be enacted.

Which of the following statements by a minister of Party C in the government of Country W is most consistent with the beliefs of an individual political party in the situation described above?

a. "Our party would rather compromise on some of our issues and also see other parties compromise on their issues than run the risk of not having legislation that we propose pass."
b. "Our party would rather give up a few minor points of ideology than risk having the issues important to our constituents not be addressed as a result of the government's inability to pass any new laws."
c. "Our party would rather participate in an environment that fosters inter-party cooperation than persist in constant conflict with other parties."
d. "Our party would rather have other parties join in support of our legislation than join in supporting the proposals of other parties."
e. "Our party would rather have our proposals passed because they represent what is best for the welfare of our country than to become engaged in the agendas of other parties."

I narrowed down to B and C...spent some extra time to eliminate C...
one party may not adhere as strictly to the agenda of each of the parties involved - so give up few minor points of ideology to achieve smth from which everyone will benefit.

A - is opposite of what it was described...it is not a compromise...
C - not really
D - extreme and not correct
E - totally opposite of what is described in argument.
User avatar
Nunuboy1994
Joined: 12 Nov 2016
Last visit: 24 Apr 2019
Posts: 564
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 167
Location: United States
Schools: Yale '18
GMAT 1: 650 Q43 V37
GRE 1: Q157 V158
GPA: 2.66
Schools: Yale '18
GMAT 1: 650 Q43 V37
GRE 1: Q157 V158
Posts: 564
Kudos: 119
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
rdg
Multi-party initiatives are becoming increasingly popular among the members of the parliament of Country W. Although legislation proposed under the auspices of more than one party may not adhere as strictly to the agenda of each of the parties involved as legislation proposed by only one party, the political backing of the voting blocs represented by the cooperating parties make such proposals more likely to pass than proposals that come from a single faction alone. The benefit of multi-party initiatives is that legislation important to the general welfare of Country W that might otherwise have foundered in inter-party disagreements can effectively be enacted.

Which of the following statements by a minister of Party C in the government of Country W is most consistent with the beliefs of an individual political party in the situation described above?

A) "Our party would rather compromise on some of our issues and also see other parties compromise on their issues than run the risk of not having legislation that we propose pass."
B) "Our party would rather give up a few minor points of ideology than risk having the issues important to our constituents not be addressed as a result of the government's inability to pass any new laws. "
C) "Our party would rather participate in an environment that fosters inter-party cooperation than persist in constant conflict with other parties."
D) "Our party would rather have other parties join in support of our legislation than join in supporting the proposals of other parties."
E) "Our party would rather have our proposals passed because they represent what is best for the welfare of our country than to become engaged in the agendas of other parties."

While "A" seems to be an attractive answer choice with the whole "than run risk of not having legislation that we propose pass' it is actually not accurate based on the stimulus. Albeit, it's one of the hardest critical questions I've seen- like something on the LSAT- but what the stimulus is basically saying is that within a country if you have four factions, say "party a, b, c ,d" or tribes and we run a multi-party initiative then it would be more likely for a piece of legislation to pass even if it leaves out some the ideas and beliefs of those factions- it just has to compromise the most important ideas . That being said, if get one person to do it or just one faction then that person's suggested legislation would of course confide with their values but it may not actually be passed. So it's better to get a bunch of people or multiple political factions to agree on something because it increases the likelihood of a piece of legislation, say a ban on gas powered cars, to be passed. A is too ambitious and contradicts the conclusion - the last sentence in the stimulus. What B is more accurately stating is that it's fine to give up some of our issues "ideology" if that ultimately means agreeing on the most important issues with other factions so as to propose legislation that is conducive or beneficial to the welfare of Country W. The few minor points of ideology are essentially what the last is sentence is asserting when it says "that might have otherwise foundered in inter-party disagreements"
User avatar
gmat1393
User avatar
Share GMAT Experience Moderator
Joined: 25 Apr 2018
Last visit: 19 Dec 2022
Posts: 647
Own Kudos:
2,373
 [1]
Given Kudos: 199
GMAT 1: 680 Q49 V34
Products:
GMAT 1: 680 Q49 V34
Posts: 647
Kudos: 2,373
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
OFFICIAL EXPLANATION:

Identify the Question Type:

This question stem may be wordy, but it still merely asks for a statement that is "consistent with" the information provided, making this an Inference question. Specifically, it will be consistent with the information provided about individual parties.

Untangle the Stimulus:

This question refers to an increase in multi-party initiatives in Country W. Such initiatives won't satisfy all of the goals of any individual party, but they're more likely to get passed. This would benefit the public, who would get helpful legislation passed that would have otherwise been dismissed.

Predict the Answer:

The correct answer will be a statement by an individual party that coincides with how individual parties are presented. With these multi-party initiatives, individual parties are joining together, even though the proposed legislation "may not adhere" entirely to each individual party's agenda. So why the compromise? Because it will make the legislation "more likely to pass," providing benefits to the general welfare. The correct answer will be consistent with this idea of sacrificing a little for the greater good.

Evaluate the Choices:

(B) is consistent and is correct. This matches the idea of supporting laws that don't entirely adhere to the party's agenda, and instead working on laws that are "more likely to pass" that address "issues important to the general welfare" of the constituents.

(A) is not supported. There's no indication that politicians want to see other politicians compromise, and this misses the ultimate goal of addressing "issues important to the general welfare."

(C) is extreme. The individual parties are not merely interested in inter-party cooperation, and there's no suggestion that conflict is "constant."

(D) is not supported. Multi-party initiatives are described as groups working together. There's no indication of favoring any one party in particular or any one party wanting everyone to take its side.

(E) is a distortion. By joining forces with other parties, individual parties are becoming engaged in the agendas of other parties.

TAKEAWAY: Even when the question stem gets wordy, there's often a straightforward task being asked. Just take your time and dissect the stem carefully.
User avatar
DavidTutorexamPAL
User avatar
examPAL Representative
Joined: 07 Dec 2017
Last visit: 09 Sep 2020
Posts: 1,048
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 26
Posts: 1,048
Kudos: 1,866
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
The answer is B.


A) "Our party would rather compromise on some of our issues and also see other parties compromise on their issues than run the risk of not having legislation that we propose pass." This looks quite good at first glance: the proposal is indeed all about parties compromising to pass legislation. But look closer: the proposal is about parties proposing legislation together, while this answer discusses a party having its own private proposals passing. issues that are important only to the part will still probably fail to pass
B) "Our party would rather give up a few minor points of ideology than risk having the issues important to our constituents not be addressed as a result of the government's inability to pass any new laws. " exactly - the parties are indeed ceding minor ground, not to further their own private goals (as in A) but in order to help the general welfare
C) "Our party would rather participate in an environment that fosters inter-party cooperation than persist in constant conflict with other parties." This DOES match the general message of the passage, but it is too general and far-reaching: just because multi-party initiatives are becoming popular, this does not mean conflict is gone - nor that this is the parties goal
D) "Our party would rather have other parties join in support of our legislation than join in supporting the proposals of other parties." incorrect - the parties are joining together for common legislation - not all are joining one party (and if this were every party's goal, it would of course fall apart, since no one would cooperate with others)
E) "Our party would rather have our proposals passed because they represent what is best for the welfare of our country than to become engaged in the agendas of other parties." the first half of the sentence is great, the second is out of scope: the status quo was not being engaged with other parties agenda, it was the opposite - each party for itself
User avatar
AKY13
Joined: 29 Sep 2016
Last visit: 01 Nov 2019
Posts: 85
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 40
Posts: 85
Kudos: 22
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
A) "Our party would rather compromise on some of our issues and also see other parties compromise on their issues than run the risk of not having legislation that we propose pass."

B) "Our party would rather give up a few minor points of ideology than risk having the issues important to our constituents not be addressed as a result of the government's inability to pass any new laws.


B is not the best & has the same flaw as A does.

In eliminating A, we are assuming that the proposals of party C are not good for general public.

Similarly, in choosing B, we are assuming that ANY proposal government passes are all good for general public.

Can somebody help.
User avatar
VerbalBot
User avatar
Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Last visit: 04 Jan 2021
Posts: 17,987
Own Kudos:
Posts: 17,987
Kudos: 902
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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.
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7153 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
234 posts