It is currently 23 Oct 2017, 11:38

### 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

# Political analyst: A party that temporarily positions itself

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Verbal Forum Moderator
Joined: 23 Oct 2011
Posts: 280

Kudos [?]: 964 [6], given: 23

Political analyst: A party that temporarily positions itself [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 May 2012, 22:42
6
KUDOS
18
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

45% (medium)

Question Stats:

68% (01:47) correct 32% (01:44) wrong based on 1023 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Political analyst: A party that temporarily positions itself in the negligible crack between the American right and left will do little to expand the public debate. What America needs is a permanent third party. Some claim that America’s success stems from the two party system. These people say that a third party would make the passage of legislation and thus governance impossible. Furthermore, they point to the current sluggish pace of government as proof that the country cannot bear the burden of a third party. Yet, most European countries have multi-party systems and few complain about any inability to govern there.

Which of the following best describes the functions of the two sections in boldface in the argument above?

A) The first is the main point of the argument; the second is a premise that supports that point.
b) The first opposes the premises of the argument; the second is the claim that the argument supports.
c) The first supports the main position held by opponents of the main point; the second is a premise that argues against that position.
d) The first is the primary claim made by opponents of the main point of the argument; the second is evidence proposed in opposition to the first.
e) The first is a claim made by opponents of the main point of the argument; the second is the claim that the first opposes.

Main CR Qs link - cr-qs-600-700-level-131508.html
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

_________________

********************
Push +1 kudos button please, if you like my post.

Kudos [?]: 964 [6], given: 23

Manager
Status: GMAT Instructor
Joined: 23 Jun 2013
Posts: 178

Kudos [?]: 82 [3], given: 4

Location: India
GRE 1: 2280 Q790 V710
GPA: 3.3
WE: Editorial and Writing (Education)
Re: Political analyst: A party that temporarily positions itself [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Jun 2014, 11:21
3
KUDOS
Dear jlgdr, kinghyts, and shagalo,

They mean opposition to the first "section in bold face".

The political analyst suggests that America needs a third party. This is the main point of the analyst's argument.

The analyst first points out an "opposing claim" made by some people. This is the first bold face section. The analyst then points out an additional claim made by these people.

The analyst responds to these claims by providing "facts" (evidence) that counter the first claim (only the governance one, not the additional claim of the sluggish pace of government and the burden of a third party).

Put all these elements together, and you get D. D clearly explains the functions of the two bold face portions.

B says that the first opposes the premises of the argument. What are the premises? Multi-party systems seem to be doing rather well -- a fact. The first bold face doesn't say that multi-part systems are NOT doing well; it merely upholds a different claim about the two-party system. It is perfectly acceptable for both two-party and multi-party systems to do well; one doesn't exclude or preclude the other. So the first bold face does not oppose the premises of the argument. B also says that the second is a claim that the argument supports. One can verify whether most countries have multi-party systems and whether few/many people complain about the governance. So the second bold face contains two verifiable statements, i.e. fact/evidence, not a claim.

The first part of E is correct; the first bold face portion is indeed a claim made by opponents of the main point of the argument. But the second is not a claim, as discussed above. Also, the first does not oppose the fact/evidence in the second part, as discussed above. (Another subtle point is that, if the first opposed the second, it should have come before, not after, the second, in the sequence of events.)

Evidence can effectively oppose a claim; it's absurd to imply that a claim can oppose fact.

_________________

EnterMBA

Kudos [?]: 82 [3], given: 4

Current Student
Joined: 06 Sep 2013
Posts: 1978

Kudos [?]: 719 [1], given: 355

Concentration: Finance
Re: Political analyst: A party that temporarily positions itself [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Oct 2013, 09:54
1
KUDOS
GetThisDone wrote:
Political analyst: A party that temporarily positions itself in the negligible crack between the
American right and left will do little to expand the public debate. What America needs is a
permanent third party. Some claim that America’s success stems from the two party
system.
These people say that a third party would make the passage of legislation and thus
governance impossible. Furthermore, they point to the current sluggish pace of government
as proof that the country cannot bear the burden of a third party. Yet, most European
countries have multi-party systems and few complain about any inability to govern
there.
Which of the following best describes the functions of the two sections in boldface in
the argument above?
A) The first is the main point of the argument; the second is a premise that supports that point.
b) The first opposes the premises of the argument; the second is the claim that the argument
supports.
c) The first supports the main position held by opponents of the main point; the second is a
premise that argues against that position.
d) The first is the primary claim made by opponents of the main point of the argument; the
second is evidence proposed in opposition to the first.
e) The first is a claim made by opponents of the main point of the argument; the second is the
claim that the first opposes.

Main CR Qs link - cr-qs-600-700-level-131508.html

Very good question here, let's try to analize it quickly.

CPX works pretty good on this one.
We actually have a nice CP, P combo.
CP= Counterpremise
P=Premise

So the first bold actually supports an opposing view and the second bold face in fact support the main conclusion of the argument
Let's take a peep at the answer choices

I think C and D are pretty close here. But note that C says that the bold face is a premise, while D says that it is the counterconclusion.
Now, the second part is very similar in both as well. So it is going to be a delicate choice. Let's proceed, shall we?
So what is the first bold actually? From my understanding, it is in fact a counterpremise as a stated before.

Some claim that America’s success stems from the two party
system.
(Counterpremise) These people say that a third party would make the passage of legislation and thus
governance impossible (Counterconclusion)

So for me the answer should be C, but I'm probably making a mistake in my reasoning.
Experts, will you shed some light on this one?
Cheers
J

Kudos [?]: 719 [1], given: 355

Manager
Joined: 10 May 2012
Posts: 55

Kudos [?]: 24 [0], given: 14

GMAT Date: 09-10-2012
Re: Political analyst: A party that temporarily positions itself [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Jul 2012, 03:13
Has to be D.

Lets analyse each part of the argument separately. Choosing 2nd part first as it is straight forward an example/evidence given in opposition to the context of the passage, notice the usage of "YET". Going by POE, D is the only option.

Lets look at the first part: In the first para, author is arguing in the favor of a third party in America, but in the bolded line he says, " some claims the opposite". Hence it is a claim made by the other who do not believe in need of a third party i.e opponents.

HTH

Kudos [?]: 24 [0], given: 14

Director
Status: Final Countdown
Joined: 17 Mar 2010
Posts: 535

Kudos [?]: 354 [0], given: 75

Location: India
GPA: 3.82
WE: Account Management (Retail Banking)
Re: Political analyst: A party that temporarily positions itself [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Jul 2012, 10:02
2
This post was
BOOKMARKED
d) The first is the primary claim made by opponents of the main point of the argument; the
second is evidence proposed in opposition to the first.

Some claim that America’s success stems from the two party
system.

is the primary claim because it is further explained ... furthermore , they point to the current sluggish pace of government
as proof that the country cannot bear the burden of a third party.

otherwise we would have opted for (E) which says that the 1st boldface is just a claim and not the primary claim.

Yet, most European
countries have multi-party systems and few complain about any inability to govern
there.

we can figure out "yet" which is throwing contrast in opposition of the primary claim mentioned above in the boldface by quoting example of European countries.

(D) Wins.
_________________

" Make more efforts "
Press Kudos if you liked my post

Kudos [?]: 354 [0], given: 75

Current Student
Joined: 06 Sep 2013
Posts: 1978

Kudos [?]: 719 [0], given: 355

Concentration: Finance
Re: Political analyst: A party that temporarily positions itself [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Oct 2013, 09:56
thevenus wrote:
d) The first is the primary claim made by opponents of the main point of the argument; the
second is evidence proposed in opposition to the first.

Some claim that America’s success stems from the two party
system.

is the primary claim because it is further explained ... furthermore , they point to the current sluggish pace of government
as proof that the country cannot bear the burden of a third party.

otherwise we would have opted for (E) which says that the 1st boldface is just a claim and not the primary claim.

Yet, most European
countries have multi-party systems and few complain about any inability to govern
there.

we can figure out "yet" which is throwing contrast in opposition of the primary claim mentioned above in the boldface by quoting example of European countries.

(D) Wins.

Is it really the primary claim for that reason? Check my post above. Would be happy to exchange thoughts. I think you approach is valid and you are probably correct.
But let me know your thoughts on why D over C.

Thanks

Kudos [?]: 719 [0], given: 355

Manager
Joined: 28 Apr 2013
Posts: 153

Kudos [?]: 75 [0], given: 84

Location: India
GPA: 4
WE: Medicine and Health (Health Care)
Re: Political analyst: A party that temporarily positions itself [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Nov 2013, 18:24
GetThisDone wrote:
Political analyst: A party that temporarily positions itself in the negligible crack between the
American right and left will do little to expand the public debate. What America needs is a
permanent third party. Some claim that America’s success stems from the two party
system.
These people say that a third party would make the passage of legislation and thus
governance impossible. Furthermore, they point to the current sluggish pace of government
as proof that the country cannot bear the burden of a third party. Yet, most European
countries have multi-party systems and few complain about any inability to govern
there.
Which of the following best describes the functions of the two sections in boldface in
the argument above?
A) The first is the main point of the argument; the second is a premise that supports that point.
b) The first opposes the premises of the argument; the second is the claim that the argument
supports.
c) The first supports the main position held by opponents of the main point; the second is a
premise that argues against that position.
d) The first is the primary claim made by opponents of the main point of the argument; the
second is evidence proposed in opposition to the first.
e) The first is a claim made by opponents of the main point of the argument; the second is the
claim that the first opposes.

Main CR Qs link - cr-qs-600-700-level-131508.html

The answer can be narrow down to C & D . But how to differentiate between Whether the 2nd Bold face was Premise or not ? A close look to the argument structure Premise - Main conclusion- Opponents claim- Reason- Evidence- Evidence in opposition of Opponents claim. So here we go right answer D.

Hope this helps :misbrand
_________________

Thanks for Posting

LEARN TO ANALYSE

+1 kudos if you like

Kudos [?]: 75 [0], given: 84

Manager
Joined: 09 Apr 2013
Posts: 148

Kudos [?]: 119 [0], given: 24

Location: India
WE: Supply Chain Management (Consulting)
Re: Political analyst: A party that temporarily positions itself [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Jan 2014, 05:30
I would like to explain why D is wrong.

d) The first is the primary claim made by opponents of the main point of the argument; the
second is evidence proposed in opposition to the first.

Furthermore, they point to the current sluggish pace of government as proof that the country cannot bear the burden of a third party. Yet, most European
countries have multi-party systems and few complain about any inability to govern there.

The second bold faced statement is not directly opposing the first but rather opposing the statement mentioned in the above passage(please look for the contrast shown here using the word "yet").
_________________

+1 KUDOS is the best way to say thanks

"Pay attention to every detail"

Kudos [?]: 119 [0], given: 24

Senior Manager
Joined: 20 Dec 2013
Posts: 267

Kudos [?]: 106 [0], given: 29

Location: India
Re: Political analyst: A party that temporarily positions itself [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Jan 2014, 05:51
D is my choice.The first BF is the counter conclusion:there shouldn't be any third party.The second BF is evidence against the counter conclusion ie premise.

Posted from my mobile device

Kudos [?]: 106 [0], given: 29

Senior Manager
Joined: 07 Nov 2012
Posts: 333

Kudos [?]: 421 [0], given: 4

Schools: LBS '14 (A)
GMAT 1: 770 Q48 V48
Re: Political analyst: A party that temporarily positions itself [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Jan 2014, 10:42
cssk wrote:
I would like to explain why D is wrong.

d) The first is the primary claim made by opponents of the main point of the argument; the
second is evidence proposed in opposition to the first.

Furthermore, they point to the current sluggish pace of government as proof that the country cannot bear the burden of a third party. Yet, most European
countries have multi-party systems and few complain about any inability to govern there.

The second bold faced statement is not directly opposing the first but rather opposing the statement mentioned in the above passage(please look for the contrast shown here using the word "yet").

Hi Cssk,

I'm afraid you are mistaken here.
D is correct.
That Europe has many parties and it works fine is evidence against "America’s success" coming "from the two party system". I.e. if Europe can succeed with many parties America can not have succeeded because of the 2 party system,

James
_________________

Former GMAT Pill student, now on staff. Used GMATPILL OG 12 and nothing else: 770 (48,48) & 6.0

... and more

Kudos [?]: 421 [0], given: 4

Manager
Joined: 09 Apr 2013
Posts: 148

Kudos [?]: 119 [0], given: 24

Location: India
WE: Supply Chain Management (Consulting)
Re: Political analyst: A party that temporarily positions itself [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Jan 2014, 12:02
I agree. Thanks plumber250 for pointing that out.
_________________

+1 KUDOS is the best way to say thanks

"Pay attention to every detail"

Kudos [?]: 119 [0], given: 24

Current Student
Joined: 06 Sep 2013
Posts: 1978

Kudos [?]: 719 [0], given: 355

Concentration: Finance
Re: Political analyst: A party that temporarily positions itself [#permalink]

### Show Tags

31 May 2014, 15:25
What do they mean by opposition to the first? To the first what?
Cheers
J

Kudos [?]: 719 [0], given: 355

Current Student
Joined: 06 Sep 2013
Posts: 1978

Kudos [?]: 719 [0], given: 355

Concentration: Finance
Re: Political analyst: A party that temporarily positions itself [#permalink]

### Show Tags

31 May 2014, 15:25
What do they mean by opposition to the first? To the first what?
Cheers
J

Kudos [?]: 719 [0], given: 355

Current Student
Joined: 06 Sep 2013
Posts: 1978

Kudos [?]: 719 [0], given: 355

Concentration: Finance
Re: Political analyst: A party that temporarily positions itself [#permalink]

### Show Tags

31 May 2014, 15:27
It is the primary claim because it is explained then; Furthermore…This second part is actually the premise of the passage. Hence option D is better than option C and is in fact the correct answer choice. Bite that C is wrong because the premise, (second boldface) does NOT argue against anything, it is simply a new statement that undermined the premise of the opponents. Hence D stands

Kudos [?]: 719 [0], given: 355

Manager
Joined: 22 Sep 2012
Posts: 141

Kudos [?]: 75 [0], given: 49

Concentration: Strategy, Technology
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Re: Political analyst: A party that temporarily positions itself [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Jun 2014, 23:00
Although I selected D) , experts please comment on how we can eliminate B and E.

Kudos [?]: 75 [0], given: 49

Manager
Joined: 15 Jan 2013
Posts: 57

Kudos [?]: 37 [0], given: 10

Re: Political analyst: A party that temporarily positions itself [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Jun 2014, 08:37
I couldn't decide between D and E. Can any one tell me , Why E is wrong ?

Thanks

Kudos [?]: 37 [0], given: 10

GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10106

Kudos [?]: 264 [0], given: 0

Re: Political analyst: A party that temporarily positions itself [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Jul 2015, 09:54
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.

Kudos [?]: 264 [0], given: 0

Intern
Joined: 06 May 2015
Posts: 27

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 315

Location: United States
Concentration: Operations, Other
GPA: 3.39
Re: Political analyst: A party that temporarily positions itself [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Oct 2015, 03:35
between D and E,

the only thing to understand is whether 2nd one is a claim or evidence. Its for sure an evidence, so D.

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 315

MBA Section Director
Joined: 19 Mar 2012
Posts: 4494

Kudos [?]: 17085 [0], given: 1963

Location: India
GMAT 1: 760 Q50 V42
GPA: 3.8
WE: Marketing (Non-Profit and Government)
Re: Political analyst: A party that temporarily positions itself [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Oct 2015, 23:18
Expert's post
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED

Kudos [?]: 17085 [0], given: 1963

GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10106

Kudos [?]: 264 [0], given: 0

Re: Political analyst: A party that temporarily positions itself [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Oct 2016, 05:45
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.

Kudos [?]: 264 [0], given: 0

Re: Political analyst: A party that temporarily positions itself   [#permalink] 15 Oct 2016, 05:45

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 22 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by