It is currently 17 Mar 2018, 21:18

### 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 June
Open Detailed Calendar

# Voters commonly condemn politicians for being insincere, but politicia

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Intern
Joined: 30 Oct 2013
Posts: 28
Voters commonly condemn politicians for being insincere, but politicia [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Aug 2015, 09:08
13
KUDOS
49
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

65% (hard)

Question Stats:

61% (01:32) correct 39% (01:48) wrong based on 2030 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Voters commonly condemn politicians for being insincere, but politicians often must disguise their true feelings when they make public statements. If they expressed their honest views - about, say, their party's policies - then achieving politically necessary compromises would be much more difficult. Clearly, the very insincerity that people decry shows that our government is functioning well.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines this reasoning?

A. Achieving political compromises is not all that is necessary for the proper functioning of a government.
B. Some political compromises are not in the best long-term interest of the government.
C. Voters often judge politicians by criteria other than the sincerity with which they express their views.
D. A political party's policies could turn out to be detrimental to the functioning of a government.
E. Some of the public statements made by politicians about their party's policies could in fact be sincere.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA
Manager
Joined: 21 Jun 2014
Posts: 142
Location: United States
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
GMAT 1: 630 Q45 V31
GPA: 3.4
WE: Engineering (Computer Software)
Re: Voters commonly condemn politicians for being insincere, but politicia [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Oct 2015, 02:01
6
KUDOS
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
Conclusion:Clearly, the very insincerity that people decry shows that our government is functioning well.
The right answer will point out how political compromise are not good for governance. Option A and B both talk about the impact of political compromise on government .
However B says :"B. Some political compromises are not in the best long-term interest of the government."It implies that there are political compromises which are in the best interest of the government.This rules out B .

Option A is the right answer.
_________________

Regards,
Manish Khare
"Every thing is fine at the end. If it is not fine ,then it is not the end "

Manager
Joined: 24 Jul 2011
Posts: 226
Location: India
GMAT 1: 570 Q50 V19
GMAT 2: 650 Q49 V28
GMAT 3: 690 Q50 V34
WE: Information Technology (Investment Banking)
Re: Voters commonly condemn politicians for being insincere, but politicia [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 Oct 2015, 22:07
2
KUDOS
In option C)

Author gave reasoning of insincerity and said that people judge them solely from insincerity to say that people often condemn politicians. I missed "for being insincere" part in first premise.
_________________

Middle of nowhere!

Intern
Joined: 05 Dec 2014
Posts: 23
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Strategy
GMAT 1: 610 Q50 V23
GPA: 3.82
WE: Corporate Finance (Consulting)
Re: Voters commonly condemn politicians for being insincere, but politicia [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Oct 2015, 00:15
1
KUDOS
thanhmaitran wrote:
Voters commonly condemn politicians for being insincere, but politicians often must disguise their true feelings when they make public statements. If they expressed their honest views - about, say, their party's policies - then achieving politically necessary compromises would be much more difficult. Clearly, the very insincerity that people decry shows that our government is functioning well.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines this reasoning?

A. Achieving political compromises is not all that is necessary for the proper functioning of a government.
B. Some political compromises are not in the best long-term interest of the government.
C. Voters often judge politicians by criteria other than the sincerity with which they express their views.
D. A political party's policies could turn out to be detrimental to the functioning of a government.
E. Some of the public statements made by politicians about their party's policies could in fact be sincere.

I am currently using the MGMAT CR guide, and am working only on improving strengthen, weaken and assumption questions. "training your ear" suggested by bb and knowing "characteristics of answers" by Stacey K from Manhattan are something I am setting out to do. Although I am finding Kaplan's some questions a little off, but their other questions seems okay.

Anyways, Premises: Candidates are often insincere because they don't want to voice their honest opinions as this may hamper any political collaborations with those parties in the future.

Conclusion: this insincerity shows that our govt is working fine.

A. Achieving political compromises is not all that is necessary for the proper functioning of a government. If achieving political collaborations isnt important, the this insincerity must be to hide something more crucial. Hence conclusion is weakened as this insincerity is not to hide any fallacies of other parties in fear of hampering future collaborations.

Hence Ans: A
Intern
Joined: 13 Sep 2015
Posts: 19
Re: Voters commonly condemn politicians for being insincere, but politicia [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Dec 2015, 07:18
2
KUDOS
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
TL: "Not being honest helps achieve politically necessary compromises, hence dishonesty in statements is a sign that Govt is functioning well"

The main link is "politically necessary compromises" and "Govt functioning well"

A. "politically necessary compromises are not necessary for functioning of Govt" delinking politically necessary compromises from Functioning of govt, hence weakens the argument.

B. is out because it speaks of some compromises, link is weak. Maybe others or most compromises are better in the long term

C. out of scope and has nothing to do with the conclusion or main thrust of the argument

D. does not mention politically necessary compromises or dishonesty of statements...out of scope

E. some statements could be sincere. So what...has nothing to do with the link identified above between compromises and govt funcitoning well.

MBA Section Director
Joined: 19 Mar 2012
Posts: 4871
Location: India
GMAT 1: 760 Q50 V42
GPA: 3.8
WE: Marketing (Non-Profit and Government)
Re: Voters commonly condemn politicians for being insincere, but politicia [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Dec 2015, 22:39
1
KUDOS
Expert's post
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
Great job with nailing this one. Kudos awarded.
_________________
Board of Directors
Joined: 17 Jul 2014
Posts: 2752
Location: United States (IL)
Concentration: Finance, Economics
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V30
GPA: 3.92
WE: General Management (Transportation)
Re: Voters commonly condemn politicians for being insincere, but politicia [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Dec 2015, 11:44
4
KUDOS
thanhmaitran wrote:
Voters commonly condemn politicians for being insincere, but politicians often must disguise their true feelings when they make public statements. If they expressed their honest views - about, say, their party's policies - then achieving politically necessary compromises would be much more difficult. Clearly, the very insincerity that people decry shows that our government is functioning well.

we need to weaken the conclusion.
the conclusion is - insincerity of politicians - gvt functions well.
the conclusion is supported by the premise that: politicians lie because by doing so, they achieve politically necessary compromises.

the assumption here is that the compromises are actually helping the gvt function well.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines this reasoning?

A. Achieving political compromises is not all that is necessary for the proper functioning of a government.
this one negates the assumption. this is a clear weakener, as the conclusion no longer stands true.

B. Some political compromises are not in the best long-term interest of the government.
well, we are not interested in long term interests. we need to show that being insincere does not help gvt function well.

C. Voters often judge politicians by criteria other than the sincerity with which they express their views.
irrelevant to the conclusion.

D. A political party's policies could turn out to be detrimental to the functioning of a government.
well, it might be true, but doesn't affect the conclusion at all.

E. Some of the public statements made by politicians about their party's policies could in fact be sincere.
irrelevant.
Intern
Joined: 29 Apr 2013
Posts: 11
Re: Voters commonly condemn politicians for being insincere, but politicia [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Mar 2016, 11:39
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
mvictor wrote:
thanhmaitran wrote:
Voters commonly condemn politicians for being insincere, but politicians often must disguise their true feelings when they make public statements. If they expressed their honest views - about, say, their party's policies - then achieving politically necessary compromises would be much more difficult. Clearly, the very insincerity that people decry shows that our government is functioning well.

we need to weaken the conclusion.
the conclusion is - insincerity of politicians - gvt functions well.
the conclusion is supported by the premise that: politicians lie because by doing so, they achieve politically necessary compromises.

the assumption here is that the compromises are actually helping the gvt function well.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines this reasoning?

A. Achieving political compromises is not all that is necessary for the proper functioning of a government.
this one negates the assumption. this is a clear weakener, as the conclusion no longer stands true.

B. Some political compromises are not in the best long-term interest of the government.
well, we are not interested in long term interests. we need to show that being insincere does not help gvt function well.

C. Voters often judge politicians by criteria other than the sincerity with which they express their views.
irrelevant to the conclusion.

D. A political party's policies could turn out to be detrimental to the functioning of a government.
well, it might be true, but doesn't affect the conclusion at all.

E. Some of the public statements made by politicians about their party's policies could in fact be sincere.
irrelevant.

Agreed with reasoning for option A ( A weakner since it negates the Assumption )
Manager
Joined: 26 Jan 2015
Posts: 93
Re: Voters commonly condemn politicians for being insincere, but politicia [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Jun 2016, 04:00
As per D, the policies may affect the functioning of the Govt. So if the politicians do not express their views sincerely, then the Govt. may fall.
This is weakening the conclusion.
Can someone please throw some light on this?
_________________

Kudos is the best way to say Thank you! Please give me a kudos if you like my post

Intern
Joined: 14 May 2015
Posts: 10
Re: Voters commonly condemn politicians for being insincere, but politicia [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Jun 2016, 09:20
how can option d can be eliminated?
I was sure that answer was A but at the same time couldn't rule out option D
Board of Directors
Status: QA & VA Forum Moderator
Joined: 11 Jun 2011
Posts: 3349
Location: India
GPA: 3.5
Re: Voters commonly condemn politicians for being insincere, but politicia [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Jun 2016, 11:44
1
KUDOS
thanhmaitran wrote:
Voters commonly condemn politicians for being insincere, but politicians often must disguise their true feelings when they make public statements. If they expressed their honest views - about, say, their party's policies - then achieving politically necessary compromises would be much more difficult. Clearly, the very insincerity that people decry shows that our government is functioning well.

vlakhanpal14 wrote:
how can option d can be eliminated?
I was sure that answer was A but at the same time couldn't rule out option D

Attachment:

Capture.PNG [ 19.97 KiB | Viewed 12493 times ]

We are talking about the decisions of the politicians and their compromises , from where does Government come in ?

Political Parties can play 2 roles -

1. Form the Government
2. Form the Opposition to the various houses of the Government

Political Party may be Independent of the Government and as such there is a flaw (Gap) in the reasoning.

Option (A) very elegantly touches on this point perfectly, whereas in point (D) we have an element of doubt , it can be true...

Hence IMHO (A) is the best answer for this question...

_________________

Thanks and Regards

Abhishek....

PLEASE FOLLOW THE RULES FOR POSTING IN QA AND VA FORUM AND USE SEARCH FUNCTION BEFORE POSTING NEW QUESTIONS

How to use Search Function in GMAT Club | Rules for Posting in QA forum | Writing Mathematical Formulas |Rules for Posting in VA forum | Request Expert's Reply ( VA Forum Only )

Intern
Joined: 05 Jan 2017
Posts: 25
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 690 Q50 V32
GPA: 3.3
Re: Voters commonly condemn politicians for being insincere, but politicia [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 Mar 2017, 17:54
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
mvictor wrote:
thanhmaitran wrote:
Voters commonly condemn politicians for being insincere, but politicians often must disguise their true feelings when they make public statements. If they expressed their honest views - about, say, their party's policies - then achieving politically necessary compromises would be much more difficult. Clearly, the very insincerity that people decry shows that our government is functioning well.

we need to weaken the conclusion.
the conclusion is - insincerity of politicians - gvt functions well.
the conclusion is supported by the premise that: politicians lie because by doing so, they achieve politically necessary compromises.

the assumption here is that the compromises are actually helping the gvt function well.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines this reasoning?

A. Achieving political compromises is not all that is necessary for the proper functioning of a government.
this one negates the assumption. this is a clear weakener, as the conclusion no longer stands true.

B. Some political compromises are not in the best long-term interest of the government.
well, we are not interested in long term interests. we need to show that being insincere does not help gvt function well.

C. Voters often judge politicians by criteria other than the sincerity with which they express their views.
irrelevant to the conclusion.

D. A political party's policies could turn out to be detrimental to the functioning of a government.
well, it might be true, but doesn't affect the conclusion at all.

E. Some of the public statements made by politicians about their party's policies could in fact be sincere.
irrelevant.

Can someone explain why B is wrong? I can't decide between A and B when I was doing this question.

The assumption that politically necessary compromises makes government function well makes sense. And I totally agree that Choice A negates this assumption.

But the reason that choice B doesn't weaken the argument is not clear to me. Is "long-term interest" equal to " functioning well"? Is this choice out of scope? I though that the statement is a weakener as long as it casts doubt about the conclusion.
Manager
Status: Private GMAT Tutor
Joined: 22 Oct 2012
Posts: 87
Location: India
Concentration: Economics, Finance
Schools: IIMA (A)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V47
Re: Voters commonly condemn politicians for being insincere, but politicia [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 Mar 2017, 20:07
7
KUDOS
6
This post was
BOOKMARKED
thanhmaitran wrote:
Voters commonly condemn politicians for being insincere, but politicians often must disguise their true feelings when they make public statements. If they expressed their honest views - about, say, their party's policies - then achieving politically necessary compromises would be much more difficult. Clearly, the very insincerity that people decry shows that our government is functioning well.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines this reasoning?

A. Achieving political compromises is not all that is necessary for the proper functioning of a government.
B. Some political compromises are not in the best long-term interest of the government.
C. Voters often judge politicians by criteria other than the sincerity with which they express their views.
D. A political party's policies could turn out to be detrimental to the functioning of a government.
E. Some of the public statements made by politicians about their party's policies could in fact be sincere.

After going through all the posts on this thread, I can see that while many of us have gotten the answer right, hardly anyone of us has gotten it right for the right reasons.

The crux of the argument is this: Since achieving politically necessary compromises would be much more difficult with honest views than with insincerity, the insincerity of the politicians shows that our govt is functioning well.

The reason given on this thread for accepting option A is that the option shows that achieving political compromises does not help in the proper functioning of a government. Or it delinks political compromises from the functioning of the government.

Neither of these reasons is correct.

If I tell you that achieving 760 on GMAT is not all that is necessary for getting admission in Harvard (which, as you know is true since there are many other requirements), does it mean that 760 on GMAT doesn't help in getting admission in Harvard? Or does it mean that 760 on GMAT is not linked to admission to Harvard?

The answer to both the questions is No. Right?

Just that one thing is not the "only" necessary requirement doesn't mean that it is not even one of the requirements. Right?

Similarly, option A doesn't mean achieving political compromises is not good for the functioning of a government.

Rather, if I change the conclusion to "the very insincerity that people decry is good for the functioning of the government", option A will become incorrect, for the abovementioned reasons.

The reason option A is correct is that the conclusion says that the insincerity "shows" that the government is functioning well.

It's like saying "your 760 on GMAT shows that you have gotten into Harvard".

Now, if someone tells me that 760 on GMAT is not the only requirement for Harvard, my above statement will be weakened.

Right?

Similarly, since option A says that achieving political compromises is not the only requirement for the proper functioning of the government, it means that even if we achieve political compromises, other requirements may not be met, and thus, the government may still not be functioning well. Therefore, just by knowing that we have probably achieved political compromises, we cannot say that the government is functioning well.

Does it make sense?

Option B is wrong because it says "some" political compromises are not in the best long-term interest of the government. One major reason for rejecting option B is that "some" means "at least one". So, essentially option B says that at least one political compromise is not in the.... Do we really need all political compromises to be in the "best long-term interests" of the government?

No. Right?

Secondly, it talks about "political compromises" in general, not specifically "necessary political compromises", as talked about in the argument. It could be that some political compromises are not good, but probably none of them is necessary. Probably, all necessary compromises are actually good for the government. Right?

Therefore, option B doesn't weaken the argument.

Option D says "A political party's policies could turn out to be detrimental to the functioning of a government". This option uses "could", which means, as in option B, that some policies could be detrimental to the functioning of a government. Now, even if some of the policies are detrimental to the functioning of the government, does it mean that politicians should express honestly?

No. Because the reasoning of the argument stands as is. If they express honestly, achieving politically "necessary" compromises would be much more difficult.

Therefore, even if option D is true, the reasoning of the argument stands as is.

Thus, option D doesn't weaken the argument and is incorrect.
_________________
Manager
Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 65
GMAT Date: 11-01-2012
Re: Voters commonly condemn politicians for being insincere, but politicia [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 May 2017, 03:24
mikemcgarry I really don't get how is d out of scope... If the politician is not sincere about party policies.. bad policies may be implemented clearly not helping in functioning of government.. why is it so out of scope..?? a I understand hits the pont but so does d...

Posted from my mobile device
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4679
Re: Voters commonly condemn politicians for being insincere, but politicia [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 May 2017, 11:06
Expert's post
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
[quote="deependra1234"]mikemcgarry I really don't get how is d out of scope... If the politician is not sincere about party policies.. bad policies may be implemented clearly not helping in functioning of government.. why is it so out of scope..?? a I understand hits the pont but so does d.../quote]
Dear deependra1234,

I'm happy to respond.

Here's the prompt argument:
Voters commonly condemn politicians for being insincere, but politicians often must disguise their true feelings when they make public statements. If they expressed their honest views--about, say, their party's policies--then achieving politically necessary compromises would be much more difficult. Clearly, the very insincerity that people decry shows that our government is functioning well.

Think about this logic carefully. The speaker is saying that the politician must be insincere and support the party platform, not because this party policies should be implemented as stated by the party, but instead, because everyone supporting the party will make it easier for the party to compromise, presumably with other parties. (In the real world, I profoundly disagree with this logic, but here, this is evidence, so we have to stick with it.)

Now, look at (D):
A political party's policies could turn out to be detrimental to the functioning of a government.
This is out-of-scope precisely because what would happen if the single party's positions were implement is entirely irrelevant to the scenario in the prompt. We know that all the politicians of the party who verbally support the party policy, regardless of whether they really believe it, will have to sit down to compromise with the other party (or other parties), and what will be implemented is this compromise. It's those compromises that (according to the argument) are good for the government. This is precisely what (A) says.

Does all this make sense?
Mike
_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire. — William Butler Yeats (1865 – 1939)

Intern
Joined: 29 Sep 2016
Posts: 7
Re: Voters commonly condemn politicians for being insincere, but politicia [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Jul 2017, 19:36
ChiranjeevSingh wrote:
thanhmaitran wrote:
Voters commonly condemn politicians for being insincere, but politicians often must disguise their true feelings when they make public statements. If they expressed their honest views - about, say, their party's policies - then achieving politically necessary compromises would be much more difficult. Clearly, the very insincerity that people decry shows that our government is functioning well.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines this reasoning?

A. Achieving political compromises is not all that is necessary for the proper functioning of a government.
B. Some political compromises are not in the best long-term interest of the government.
C. Voters often judge politicians by criteria other than the sincerity with which they express their views.
D. A political party's policies could turn out to be detrimental to the functioning of a government.
E. Some of the public statements made by politicians about their party's policies could in fact be sincere.

After going through all the posts on this thread, I can see that while many of us have gotten the answer right, hardly anyone of us has gotten it right for the right reasons.

The crux of the argument is this: Since achieving politically necessary compromises would be much more difficult with honest views than with insincerity, the insincerity of the politicians shows that our govt is functioning well.

The reason given on this thread for accepting option A is that the option shows that achieving political compromises does not help in the proper functioning of a government. Or it delinks political compromises from the functioning of the government.

Neither of these reasons is correct.

If I tell you that achieving 760 on GMAT is not all that is necessary for getting admission in Harvard (which, as you know is true since there are many other requirements), does it mean that 760 on GMAT doesn't help in getting admission in Harvard? Or does it mean that 760 on GMAT is not linked to admission to Harvard?

The answer to both the questions is No. Right?

Just that one thing is not the "only" necessary requirement doesn't mean that it is not even one of the requirements. Right?

Similarly, option A doesn't mean achieving political compromises is not good for the functioning of a government.

Rather, if I change the conclusion to "the very insincerity that people decry is good for the functioning of the government", option A will become incorrect, for the abovementioned reasons.

The reason option A is correct is that the conclusion says that the insincerity "shows" that the government is functioning well.

It's like saying "your 760 on GMAT shows that you have gotten into Harvard".

Now, if someone tells me that 760 on GMAT is not the only requirement for Harvard, my above statement will be weakened.

Right?

Similarly, since option A says that achieving political compromises is not the only requirement for the proper functioning of the government, it means that even if we achieve political compromises, other requirements may not be met, and thus, the government may still not be functioning well. Therefore, just by knowing that we have probably achieved political compromises, we cannot say that the government is functioning well.

Does it make sense?

Option B is wrong because it says "some" political compromises are not in the best long-term interest of the government. One major reason for rejecting option B is that "some" means "at least one". So, essentially option B says that at least one political compromise is not in the.... Do we really need all political compromises to be in the "best long-term interests" of the government?

No. Right?

Secondly, it talks about "political compromises" in general, not specifically "necessary political compromises", as talked about in the argument. It could be that some political compromises are not good, but probably none of them is necessary. Probably, all necessary compromises are actually good for the government. Right?

Therefore, option B doesn't weaken the argument.

Option D says "A political party's policies could turn out to be detrimental to the functioning of a government". This option uses "could", which means, as in option B, that some policies could be detrimental to the functioning of a government. Now, even if some of the policies are detrimental to the functioning of the government, does it mean that politicians should express honestly?

No. Because the reasoning of the argument stands as is. If they express honestly, achieving politically "necessary" compromises would be much more difficult.

Therefore, even if option D is true, the reasoning of the argument stands as is.

Thus, option D doesn't weaken the argument and is incorrect.

I completely agree. However, I saw it in a different light. We have to weaken the argument (this does not mean the conclusion only, some people only want to weaken the conclusion but it extremely important to understand how the author came to that conclusion (the premise) in order to weaken it).

The conclusion is simple: Insincerity shows that the government is functioning well.
Why? (Premise). Because politicians are insincere to achieve political compromises.

In short words the author's argument is that Politicians are insincere to achieve compromise, and achieving compromise means government functioning well. Basically stating that all that is needed to make a government function well is to achieve compromise. (The reason why political lie)

How do we weaken the argument (conclusion + supporting premise) = We need to show the author that a government does not function well only by achieving compromises. And answer A does just that.
SVP
Joined: 12 Dec 2016
Posts: 1946
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V33
GPA: 3.64
Re: Voters commonly condemn politicians for being insincere, but politicia [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Jul 2017, 22:28
B and D are so wrong.
C seems to be out of scope, and indeed it does => A mentions "proper functioning of the government"
E is unreliable because of "some"
Intern
Joined: 07 Aug 2016
Posts: 18
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 600 Q45 V26
GPA: 3.86
Re: Voters commonly condemn politicians for being insincere, but politicia [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Oct 2017, 13:52
I have a question related to fundamentals, is this technically a "Weaken" question or a "Method of Reasoning and Flaw" type?
Re: Voters commonly condemn politicians for being insincere, but politicia   [#permalink] 13 Oct 2017, 13:52
Display posts from previous: Sort by