When governments subsidize certain industries, the business owners and

VeritasKarishma could you please help me with @hoozan's point? I have the same doubt and I used the same quantitative reasoning to reject B.
GMATNinja GMATNinjaTwo ChiranjeevSingh @CJAnish- Please see if you can help.

Thanking you in advance.

The gist of the argument is: most people see industry-specific subsidies as unfavorable. Consequently, political candidates would increase their likelihood of being elected if they oppose such subsidies.

Other things aside, I see that there is a 'being' in the conclusion

Let's say that I make this argument that since a majority of horses in the world are white and the remaining are black, a white horse is more likely to win a horse race than a black horse.

What if somebody says black horses are significantly more likely to participate in a horse race than white horses?

My premise was just that there are more white horses than black horses (of course, there is no upper limit to 'most', but the guaranteed information is that it is at least slightly greater than 50% i.e. there are more white horses than black horses). Now, somebody says black horses are significantly more likely to participate. In light of this information and my premise, do we know horses of which color are going to participate more in the races? No. Then, which one is more likely to win? Don't know. That's how the argument breaks down.

Thanks ChiranjeevSingh for such a quick reply.

ChiranjeevSingh
Do you think this is a good Assumption question?

Also, I have a follow up doubt.

I think in option A also we could get cases in which the answer would come "Don't know."
A case that came to my mind is suppose there are a total of 100 people and 51 are aware and 49 are not. And suppose these people are just aware and don't vote and the 49 are not aware. And these 49 can vote either for a candidate who favours or for a candidate who doesn't. At last we wouldn't know who is more likely to win.

Please guide me where my reasoning is going wrong.
Thanking in advance.

ashmit99:

When governments subsidize certain industries, owners and employees of those industries benefit
But the majority of consumers suffer.
Unsurprisingly, polling indicates that most people see industry-specific subsidies as unfavorable.

Conclusion: Political candidates would increase their likelihood of being elected if they oppose such subsidies.

Notice the conclusion "candidates would increase your likelihood of being elected" if they oppose subsidies. It is based on the premise that most people do not favour subsidies.
The question is: do these "most people who oppose subsidies" vote? What if very few of them vote and many of the ones who favour subsidies vote. Then you may be alienating a bigger chunk. Then can we say that you increase your likelihood of being elected? No, we cannot say it. Whether we actually increase or decrease our likelihood will depend on the actual numbers, but we cannot conclude that you will increase your likelihood of being elected. Hence our conclusion fails and that is what (B) says.

A. Most voters are well-informed about their elected representatives’ positions on subsidies.

Negated (A): Most voters are NOT well-informed about their elected representatives’ positions on subsidies.

Doesn't matter. Say only 30% voters are informed. The increase in votes that we are expecting will come from this 30% instead of 100%. The increase in votes may not be a whole lot but it will be an increase. That will increase the likelihood of being elected. It may not be enough to get elected but it will increase the likelihood of getting elected and that is all we are talking about. (A) is only decreasing the overall pool. It is not increasing/reducing relative number of opposers/supporters.

Answer (B)

VeritasKarishma

I think in option A also we could get cases in which the answer would come "Don't know."
A case that came to my mind is suppose there are a total of 100 people and 51 are aware and 49 are not. And suppose these people are just aware and don't vote and the 49 are not aware. And these 49 can vote either for a candidate who favours or for a candidate who doesn't. At last we wouldn't know who is more likely to win.

Please guide me where my reasoning is going wrong.
Thanking in advance.

Option (A) tells you something about the general public. That would be applicable to everyone if no distinction has been made in the option. The option does not say that opposers are not aware or supporters are not aware. It just says that more than 50% people are aware so we are negating it to mean less than 50% are aware. Who constitutes that less than 50% - the general public - which we have no reason to believe would be anything other than supporters and opposers in the same ratio as that in the complete population.
What proportion votes and what proportion doesn't has not been introduced in this option.

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.