Mr. Janeck: I don't believe Stevenson will win the election for govern

It is a good idea to first read the question stem. It prepares you to analyze the stimulus according to the question. Plus, in a complicated question, you don't have to go back and read the entire stimulus again (part of SWIMMER strategy of Veritas)

Here I first read the question: Ms. Siuzdak’s response shows that she has interpreted Mr. Janeck’s remark to imply which of the following?
I see there are two speakers. I know that Ms. Siuzdak interprets Mr. Janeck’s remark to imply something. Great, lets go ahead and read the stimulus.

Mr Janeck talks about the unwillingness of voters to elect a businessman without political experience to such a position.

Ms Siuzdak says, "You are wrong." and goes on to elaborate how experience of running a business prepares one to run the government.

When I read Ms. Siuzdak's response, I think, "She is interpreting an implication in Mr Janeck's remark. What is it?"
It does strike me as odd that he only mentioned how voters feel. He did not say that Stevenson was unsuitable for office while Ms. Siuzdak tries to convince him why Stevenson is suitable. She doesn't say something like, "You are wrong. Voters understand that the experience of running a major corporation is a valuable preparation for the task of running a state government."

Now I look at the options. It is pretty clear that she interpreted that Mr Janeck believes Stevenson is not suitable for office. (A) is the correct answer.
(D) is incorrect. The issue is experience here. Not how profit chasing affects the character of a person and makes him unsuitable for government office.
(E) is incorrect because she overlooked voters completely and responded to Mr Janeck as if he had said the following: "A businessman with no political experience should not be elected to such a responsible public office."

It is a good idea to first read the question stem. It prepares you to analyze the stimulus according to the question. Plus, in a complicated question, you don't have to go back and read the entire stimulus again (part of SWIMMER strategy of Veritas)

Here I first read the question: Ms. Siuzdak’s response shows that she has interpreted Mr. Janeck’s remark to imply which of the following?
I see there are two speakers. I know that Ms. Siuzdak interprets Mr. Janeck’s remark to imply something. Great, lets go ahead and read the stimulus.

Mr Janeck talks about the unwillingness of voters to elect a businessman without political experience to such a position.

Ms Siuzdak says, "You are wrong." and goes on to elaborate how experience of running a business prepares one to run the government.

When I read Ms. Siuzdak's response, I think, "She is interpreting an implication in Mr Janeck's remark. What is it?"
It does strike me as odd that he only mentioned how voters feel. He did not say that Stevenson was unsuitable for office while Ms. Siuzdak tries to convince him why Stevenson is suitable. She doesn't say something like, "You are wrong. Voters understand that the experience of running a major corporation is a valuable preparation for the task of running a state government."

Now I look at the options. It is pretty clear that she interpreted that Mr Janeck believes Stevenson is not suitable for office. (A) is the correct answer.
(D) is incorrect. The issue is experience here. Not how profit chasing affects the character of a person and makes him unsuitable for government office.
(E) is incorrect because she overlooked voters completely and responded to Mr Janeck as if he had said the following: "A businessman with no political experience should not be elected to such a responsible public office."

I would have definitely gone with A if 'unqualified' was not the word. unqualified is too strong a word. Ms Siuzdak does not feel Mr Janeck thinks something disqualifies him from contesting for the office. Nothing disqualifies him. Its just that voters will feel he is incompetent to run a state


But I guess the OA is A.

Competition Mode Question

Mr. Janeck: I don't believe Stevenson will win the election for governor. Few voters are willing to elect a businessman with no political experience to such a responsible public office.

Ms. Siuzdak: You're wrong. The experience of running a major corporation is a valuable preparation for the task of running a state government.

M. Siuzdak's response shows that she has interpreted Mr. Janeck's remark to imply which of the following?

A. Mr. Janeck considers Stevenson unqualified for the office of governor.
B. No candidate without political experience has ever been elected governor of a state.
C. Mr. Janeck believes that political leadership and business leadership are closely analogous.
D. A career spent in the pursuit of profit can be an impediment to one’s ability to run a state government fairly.
E. Voters generally overestimate the value of political experience when selecting a candidate.

I would have definitely gone with A if 'unqualified' was not the word. unqualified is too strong a word. Ms Siuzdak does not feel Mr Janeck thinks something disqualifies him from contesting for the office. Nothing disqualifies him. Its just that voters will feel he is incompetent to run a state


But I guess the OA is A.

Yes I eliminated answer A for the very same reason. Mr.Janeck never personally felt that Stevenson is underqualified, also he provided reason why he believe Stevenson can't win the election since few voters are willing to elect businessman, hence immediately eliminated this answer and went with Option C, because this clearly explains why Mr.Janeck thinks it's obvious that businessman will stand a chance because him/voters believe that Business and Political experience are similar and comparable and him/voters wouldn't care less if contestant had either of the experience. But eventually after going through the thread understood Ms.Siuzdak, didn't specifically mention the word "Voters" in her statement intending her explanation solely for Mr.Janeck.

KarishmaB Please help me understand how I can improve my view towards the argument here and avoid missing the subtle difference.