Editorialist: News media rarely cover local politics thoroughly

The Argument is basically showing the impact of less New coverage ..Only option D talks about news coverage and its effect in reducing discouragement of resident in participating local politics.

Are LSAT CR questions actual representative of GMAT CR.
Seem to be getting most of these wrong.
Here went with A .

Hi Broall,

I was oscillating between D and E, but ended up on wrong side

I have one question regarding E,

Premise: News media rarely cover local politics thoroughly, and local political business is usually conducted secretively. These factors each tend to isolate local politicians from their electorates. This has the effect of reducing the chance that any particular act of resident participation will elicit a positive official response, which in turn discourages resident participation in local politics.

News Media rare coverage and business conducted secretively -> isolation of local politicians from their electorates -> less chance of positive official response -> discourage residente participation.

Contra Positive: no discourage of resident participation -> more chance of positive official response -> less isolation of local politicians -> news media more coverage.

is n't answer choice E, saying contrapositive?

If resident participation in local politics were not discouraged, this would cause local politicians to be less isolated from their electorate.
no discourage of resident partipation -> less isolation of local politicians , is n't this correct?

Please help

Thanks

I think that the logic in this question is: X->Y and Y->Z thus X->Z. Since the question asks the answer choice that the argument most strongly supports, we come to choice B, which states the conclusion that X->Z. Other choices just conclude Y->Z so aren't good enough.

Anyone please explain to me why A is wrong?

Let's take a look at A:


The problematic word is "likely". We know that the low coverage of local news and secretive conduct of local political businesses leads to isolation of local politicians from their electorate. If these problems were remedied the isolation would be reduced and it would become more likely that resident participation would result in positive responses from local politicians. We just know that the likelihood would increase but we don't know by how much. Hence, we can't state that resident participation would likely result in positive responses. This is why answer A is incorrect.

Hope that helps

Editorialist: News media rarely cover local politics thoroughly, and local political business is usually conducted secretively. These factors each tend to isolate local politicians from their electorates. This has the effect of reducing the chance that any particular act of resident participation will elicit a positive official response, which in turn discourages resident participation in local politics.

Which one of the following is most strongly supported by the editorialist’s statements?

(A) Particular acts of resident participation would be likely to elicit a positive response from local politicians if those politicians were less isolated from their electorate.

(Incorrect:-we know isolation results in discouragement. But it does not mean less isolation will result in positive response)

(B) Local political business should be conducted less secretively because this would avoid discouraging resident participation in local politics.

(Incorrect:-cannot infer anything"moral" from the information given)

(C) The most important factor influencing a resident’s decision as to whether to participate in local politics is the chance that the participation will elicit a positive official response.

(Incorrect:-does not have to be the "most important factor". Only need to be an important factor in making the decision)

(D) More-frequent thorough coverage of local politics would reduce at least one source of discouragement from resident participation in local politics.

(Correct:- since the positive response has to be an important factor affecting the decision, thus more frequent coverage will illicit some positive response and hence will reduce discouragement at least a little)

(E) If resident participation in local politics were not discouraged, this would cause local politicians to be less isolated from their electorate.

(incorrect:- cannot be inferred)



facts:-
1) local politics conducted secretively
2) media does not conduct thorough coverage of local politics

Result:- local politicians isolated from their electorates

Conclusion:- Discourage resident participation in Local Politics
Premise:- local politicians isolated from their electorates. little chance of a positive official response


Under what conditions will the conclusion not hold true:- residents are not discouraged?

"when a positive official response is not an important factor in deciding to participate in the local politics.

Hence, positive response has to be an important decisive factor. It need not be the most important one.

Hi GMATNinja,
I have used the same strategy and marked E. I am not able to eliminate E. Could you please help here. Why is E wrong?

Why B is incorrect ?

GMATNinja

In the passage, the editorialist makes an argument about how the world is, but never discusses how the world should be. Maybe he/she thinks that discouraging residents from participation is appalling -- but maybe not. Perhaps he/she is an evil mastermind attempting to take over the local government, in which case secrecy and lack of resident participation is great!

Take another look at (B):

This answer choice makes a statement about how the world should be. As discussed above, we simply do not have information to support this claim -- the passage tells us how the world is (according to the author), not how he/she believes it ought to be. This answer choice is not supported by the passage, so you can eliminate (B).

I hope that helps!

thanks a lot GMATNinja

And your new profile logo is pretty one

A is wrong because it is mistaken reversal:
the stimulus is saying X->Y, but A is saying not X -> not Y. We can never do that!

E is wrong because (quoted noah from manhattan prep forum)

Just because something is the contrapositive, doesn't mean it causes something else to happen. For example:
If Lucy is drunk, she dances. Does not dancing cause her not to be drunk? No.

GMATNinja what makes A wrong?

I'll steal from my previous post for a breakdown of the passage:

• News media rarely cover local politics thoroughly. At the same time, local political business is usually conducted secretively.
• These two factors result in the isolation of local politicians from their electorates.
• The isolation of local politicians from electorates results in a lower chance that any act of resident participation will elicit a positive official response.
• When there is a lower chance that any act of resident participation will elicit a positive official response, then residents will be discouraged from participating in local politics.

Here's (A):

The issue here is with the word "likely."

The passage talks in relative terms: the isolation of local politicians reduces the chances of an official response, in comparison to how often they would respond if they were NOT isolated. The problem is that we have no idea how great either of those chances actually are.

Maybe an isolated official only responds to one out of a hundred acts of resident participation, and a non-isolated official responds to two out of a hundred such acts. Here, the isolated official is LESS likely to respond, but the non-isolated official isn't exactly LIKELY to respond. He/she is just slightly more responsive than an isolated official, while still being pretty unresponsive.

So, the passage doesn't support the fact that "acts of resident participation would be likely to elicit a positive response from local politicians if those politicians were less isolated," as stated in (A). Sure, less isolated politicians might be more likely to respond than isolated politicians, but it could still be a unlikely outcome.

Eliminate (A).

I hope that helps!

Editorialist: News media rarely cover local politics thoroughly, and local political business is usually conducted secretively. These factors each tend to isolate local politicians from their electorates. This has the effect of reducing the chance that any particular act of resident participation will elicit a positive official response, which in turn discourages resident participation in local politics.

Which one of the following is most strongly supported by the editorialist’s statements?

(A) Particular acts of resident participation would be likely to elicit a positive response from local politicians if those politicians were less isolated from their electorate.
-this may or may not be true
-we know that isolation of local politicians reduces the chance that any particular act of participation will elicit a positive response, but we don't know whether other factors contribute to eliciting a response

(B) Local political business should be conducted less secretively because this would avoid discouraging resident participation in local politics.
-this isn't an inference, but a normative claim about what should be the case

(C) The most important factor influencing a resident’s decision as to whether to participate in local politics is the chance that the participation will elicit a positive official response.
-extreme language, we don't know whether this is true or not

(D) More-frequent thorough coverage of local politics would reduce at least one source of discouragement from resident participation in local politics. CORRECT
-we know for sure that coverage of local politics is one of the factors leading to the isolation of politicians and hence discouragement of resident participation so surely improving such coverage would reduce such discouragement

(E) If resident participation in local politics were not discouraged, this would cause local politicians to be less isolated from their electorate.
-may or may not be true

This was a very fine line, thanks a lot for explaining!

­For the first time, I'd beg to differ with the explanation provided. Although I agree with the premise in the first paragraph, however, rather than relying on 'should be' and 'is' aspects of the world construction as stated in the question stem, I think it would be better to eliminate option B on the criteria that it can wrongfully confer two things:
1) 'Less' secretive conduction of political business would be appreciated by the people. It is also possible that people appreciate complete transparency from their politicians. Nothing is stated to correlate the amount of secrecy to the level of discouragement, as opposed to option (D).
2) Use of the word 'avoid' discouragement suggests that the feeling of discouragement could be averted entirely by doing as stated.

As per the second sentence, I'd like to think that both (B) and (D) are two sides of the same coin,  one however gives off a less hindered shine.