Joshi is clearly letting campaign contributions influence his vote

Joshi is clearly letting campaign contributions influence his vote in city council. His campaign for re-election has received more financial support from property developers than any other city councilors has. And more than any other councilor's, his voting record favors the interests of property developers.

P: His campaign for re-election has received more financial support from property developers than any other city councilors has
P: And more than any other councilor's, his voting record favors the interests of property developers
C: Joshi is clearly letting campaign contributions influence his vote in city council

So because Joshi has received the most money and voted more favorably than others for property developers, they are therefore influencing him. When I first read this, this seemed to be a fair argument. If this is the case, reread the stimulus. If you still can't get the argument, move to the answers. For this, they are assuming that the contributions affect his voting, but couldn't it be the other way around? Couldn't he vote and then receive money? Regardless, let's see which answer choice speaks to us the most, as this could go in fifteen different directions.

The reasoning in the argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument


(A) takes for granted that because certain events occurred sequentially, the earlier events caused the later events -- So close, but also so wrong. We have no idea which came first in this instance. It could be that the contributions took place before or after. This is why this is wrong. This assumes that the events are set in an order, whereas the argument does not. Out.

(B) confuses one thing's being necessary for another to occur with its being sufficient to make it occur -- Not a sufficiency necessity error. This is when x --> Y, therefore X/ --> /Y or something to this affect. Either way, not the issue at hand and will NEVER be tested on the GMAT. Out.

(C) makes a moral judgment when only a factual judgment can be justified -- Morals are not discussed here, and we have no idea when something is or isn't justified. Out.

(D) presumes that one thing is the cause of another when it could easily be an effect of it -- Perfect. The argument thinks that the money triggered the donations and voting, when it could have been the opposite way around.

(E) has a conclusion that is simply a restatement of one of the argument's stated premises -- Wrong. As stated above, the two premises are separate of the conclusion, otherwise we would have noted it above. This type of circular reference does come up, but it is not the case here.

Hi Experts,

I find (A), (D), (E) equally tempting. Can't find errors to eliminate them, please clarify.

Stimulus breakdown:

P1: Re-election received more financial support from property developers
+
P2: voting recd. favors the interest of property developers
=====================================
Conclusion:letting campaign contri influence his vote in city C

Here's (D):


Joshi is on the city council right now. His past voting record favors the interests of property developers. Property developers are supporting his re-election campaign with contributions.

The author concludes from this that the campaign contributions are CAUSING his pro-property votes. But what if he was already pro-property, and THAT caused property developers to support him with contributions? The argument totally misses this -- it assumes that the contributions caused the votes, but it could easily be the other way around.

(D) is looking good.

Here's (A):


The sequence of events is:

• Joshi is on the council.
• Joshi votes pro-property developer.
• Property developers support Joshi's re-election campaign.

The author assumes that the LATER event (#3) caused the EARLIER event (#2). That's the opposite of what (A) says, so (A) isn't good grounds to criticize the argument.

Eliminate (A).

Here's (E):


The author concludes that "Joshi is clearly letting campaign contributions influence his vote in city council." In other words, the voting record is CAUSED by the campaign contributions.

Then, as evidence for this, the author cites Joshi's voting record, and separately the campaign contributions. The conclusion does something really different by saying that one of these things causes the other.

So, we can't criticize the argument by saying that the conclusion simply restates the premises.

(E) is out, and (D) is the correct answer.

I hope that helps!