GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

It is currently 19 Nov 2019, 23:19

Close

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
Your Progress

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

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Political Analyst: Senator Frank’s odds

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Find Similar Topics 
Verbal Forum Moderator
User avatar
V
Status: Greatness begins beyond your comfort zone
Joined: 08 Dec 2013
Posts: 2431
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
Schools: Kelley '20, ISB '19
GPA: 3.2
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge CAT Tests
Political Analyst: Senator Frank’s odds  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Jul 2019, 08:00
3
1
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  65% (hard)

Question Stats:

60% (01:46) correct 40% (02:08) wrong based on 277 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

Political Analyst: Senator Frank’s odds are low in the upcoming elections. The incumbent contestant seemingly had a clear political style of avoiding foes. When the conservatives pressed hard on their demand, Senator Frank gave in, when the liberals pressed hard, he did not disappoint. As a result, he, indeed, made no foes but his dilly-dally approach won him no friends either. With the self-earned reputation of a soft leader, he must see the writing on the wall.

In the argument given, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

A. The first is a position that the argument seeks to challenge; the second is a judgment in support of the position that the argument seeks to establish.
B. The first is a premise that has been used to support the position that the argument seeks to challenge; the second is a judgment that weakens that position.
C. The first is the only explicit conclusion in the argument; the second is a premise that supports that conclusion.
D. The first is a premise that has been used to support the prediction that the argument seeks to make; the second is a judgment that, if true, will support the prediction.
E. The first is a premise that has been used to support the conclusion that the argument seeks to establish; the second is that conclusion.

 

This question was provided by Experts Global
for the Game of Timers Competition

_________________
When everything seems to be going against you, remember that the airplane takes off against the wind, not with it. - Henry Ford
The Moment You Think About Giving Up, Think Of The Reason Why You Held On So Long
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
G
Joined: 10 Aug 2018
Posts: 339
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Operations
WE: Operations (Energy and Utilities)
Reviews Badge
Re: Political Analyst: Senator Frank’s odds  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Jul 2019, 08:08
The argument opposes the prediction that odd's are low in winning the election.
Second, if true will definitely weaken that position.


A. The first is a position that the argument seeks to challenge; the second is a judgment in support of the position that the argument seeks to establish.
B. The first is a premise that has been used to support the position that the argument seeks to challenge; the second is a judgment that weakens that position.
C. The first is the only explicit conclusion in the argument; the second is a premise that supports that conclusion.
D. The first is a premise that has been used to support the prediction that the argument seeks to make; the second is a judgment that, if true, will support the prediction.
E. The first is a premise that has been used to support the conclusion that the argument seeks to establish; the second is that conclusion.
_________________
On the way to get into the B-school and I will not leave it until I win. WHATEVER IT TAKES.

" I CAN AND I WILL"

GMAT:[640 Q44, V34, IR4, AWA5]
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
G
Joined: 05 Mar 2017
Posts: 261
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Marketing
GPA: 3.6
WE: Marketing (Hospitality and Tourism)
Reviews Badge CAT Tests
Re: Political Analyst: Senator Frank’s odds  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Jul 2019, 08:20
1
Political Analyst: Senator Frank’s odds are low in the upcoming elections. The incumbent contestant seemingly had a clear political style of avoiding foes. When the conservatives pressed hard on their demand, Senator Frank gave in, when the liberals pressed hard, he did not disappoint. As a result, he, indeed, made no foes but his dilly-dally approach won him no friends either. With the self-earned reputation of a soft leader, he must see the writing on the wall.

This is a fairly easy question.
Before we see the answer choices, let's analyze the question.
With the self-earned reputation of a soft leader, he must see the writing on the wall. This is the conclusion of the argument.

Now how the Political Analyst has arrived at the conclusion is by setting the premise that Senator Frank’s odds are low in the upcoming elections. Why are the chances low ? The incumbent contestant seemingly had a clear political style of avoiding foes. When the conservatives pressed hard on their demand, Senator Frank gave in, when the liberals pressed hard, he did not disappoint. As a result, he, indeed, made no foes but his dilly-dally approach won him no friends either.

So that means both BF is in a way used to support the conclusion of the analyst.

Now let's get to POE.



In the argument given, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

A. The first is a position that the argument seeks to challenge; the second is a judgment in support of the position that the argument seeks to establish.
This is incorrect because the first is not a position that the argument seeks to challenge

B. The first is a premise that has been used to support the position that the argument seeks to challenge; the second is a judgment that weakens that position.
This is incorrect because the first is not a premise that has been used to support the position that the argument seeks to challenge AND even second is not a judgment that weakens that position.

C. The first is the only explicit conclusion in the argument; the second is a premise that supports that conclusion.
This is incorrect because The first is not the only explicit conclusion in the argument.

D. The first is a premise that has been used to support the prediction that the argument seeks to make; the second is a judgment that, if true, will support the prediction.
This is the correct choice. As it matches with our prethinking.

E. The first is a premise that has been used to support the conclusion that the argument seeks to establish; the second is that conclusion.
This is incorrect because the second is not the conclusion of the argument.


Hence the answer is D.
Manager
Manager
avatar
G
Joined: 26 Jan 2016
Posts: 181
CAT Tests
Re: Political Analyst: Senator Frank’s odds  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Jul 2019, 08:33
1
Quote:
Political Analyst: Senator Frank’s odds are low in the upcoming elections. The incumbent contestant seemingly had a clear political style of avoiding foes. When the conservatives pressed hard on their demand, Senator Frank gave in, when the liberals pressed hard, he did not disappoint. As a result, he, indeed, made no foes but his dilly-dally approach won him no friends either. With the self-earned reputation of a soft leader, he must see the writing on the wall.

In the argument given, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

A. The first is a position that the argument seeks to challenge; the second is a judgment in support of the position that the argument seeks to establish.
B. The first is a premise that has been used to support the position that the argument seeks to challenge; the second is a judgment that weakens that position.
C. The first is the only explicit conclusion in the argument; the second is a premise that supports that conclusion.
D. The first is a premise that has been used to support the prediction that the argument seeks to make; the second is a judgment that, if true, will support the prediction.
E. The first is a premise that has been used to support the conclusion that the argument seeks to establish; the second is that conclusion.


Here, ' Senator Frank’s odds are low in the upcoming elections' is the prediction made by the PA and he uses premise 'The incumbent contestant seemingly had a clear political style of avoiding foes' to support the previous prediction which the argument makes.
'As a result, he, indeed, made no foes but his dilly-dally approach won him no friends either.' - This is a middle conclusion or a judgement made using an evidence 'When the conservatives pressed hard on their demand, Senator Frank gave in, when the liberals pressed hard, he did not disappoint.'. Now PA has made this judgement in order to support his prediction, which if true would support the prediction. Thats y D


A. The first is a position that the argument seeks to challenge; the second is a judgment in support of the position that the argument seeks to establish. - Argument doesn't challenge any position. SO Incorrect
B. The first is a premise that has been used to support the position that the argument seeks to challenge; the second is a judgment that weakens that position. - Argument doesn't challenge any position. SO Incorrect
C. The first is the only explicit conclusion in the argument; the second is a premise that supports that conclusion. - The main conclusion is the prediction. Incorrect
D. The first is a premise that has been used to support the prediction that the argument seeks to make; the second is a judgment that, if true, will support the prediction. - Correct, as explained above
E. The first is a premise that has been used to support the conclusion that the argument seeks to establish; the second is that conclusion. - 2nd is not the conclusion for which 1st is used for support, but a conclusion drawn based on 1st and evidence. SO incorrect.

Hence D
_________________
Your Kudos can boost my morale..!!

I am on a journey. Gradually I'll there..!!
Manager
Manager
avatar
S
Joined: 30 Aug 2018
Posts: 103
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Accounting
GPA: 3.36
WE: Consulting (Computer Software)
Premium Member
Re: Political Analyst: Senator Frank’s odds  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Jul 2019, 08:37
In the argument given, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

A. The first is a position that the argument seeks to challenge; the second is a judgment in support of the position that the argument seeks to establish.---does not challenges
B. The first is a premise that has been used to support the position that the argument seeks to challenge; the second is a judgment that weakens that position.---2nd statement is also in favor of the conclusion
C. The first is the only explicit conclusion in the argument; the second is a premise that supports that conclusion. ---the line before first is the conclusion.
D. The first is a premise that has been used to support the prediction that the argument seeks to make; the second is a judgment that, if true, will support the prediction.
E. The first is a premise that has been used to support the conclusion that the argument seeks to establish; the second is that conclusion.
2nd is just a supporting statement
Director
Director
User avatar
P
Joined: 04 Sep 2015
Posts: 662
Location: India
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Premium Member Reviews Badge
Political Analyst: Senator Frank’s odds  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post Updated on: 24 Jul 2019, 05:04
IMO : D

Political Analyst: Senator Frank’s odds are low in the upcoming elections. The incumbent contestant seemingly had a clear political style o
avoiding foes. When the conservatives pressed hard on their demand, Senator Frank gave in, when the liberals pressed hard, he did not disappoint. As a result, he, indeed, made no foes but his dilly-dally approach won him no friends either. With the self-earned reputation of a soft leader, he must see the writing on the wall.

In the argument given, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

A. The first is a position that the argument seeks to challenge; the second is a judgment in support of the position that the argument seeks to establish.First does not challenge the conclusion or the argument as a whole
B. The first is a premise that has been used to support the position that the argument seeks to challenge; the second is a judgment that weakens that position.
The first boldface is supporting but the second boldface does not weakens the argument but supports.
C. The first is the only explicit conclusion in the argument; the second is a premise that supports that conclusion.
The first is not the conclusion but support.
D. The first is a premise that has been used to support the prediction that the argument seeks to make; the second is a judgment that, if true, will support the prediction.
Correct because first is the premise that supports and second is the judgement that supports as well.
E. The first is a premise that has been used to support the conclusion that the argument seeks to establish; the second is that conclusion.
Second is not the main conclusion.

Originally posted by abhishekdadarwal2009 on 23 Jul 2019, 08:37.
Last edited by abhishekdadarwal2009 on 24 Jul 2019, 05:04, edited 1 time in total.
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 25 Aug 2015
Posts: 45
Re: Political Analyst: Senator Frank’s odds  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Jul 2019, 08:47
1
The answer is D.

A. The first is a position that the argument seeks to challenge; the second is a judgment in support of the position that the argument seeks to establish. - the argument is not challenging any position, but seeking to make a prediction

B. The first is a premise that has been used to support the position that the argument seeks to challenge; the second is a judgment that weakens that position. - the argument is not challenging any position, but seeking to make a prediction

C. The first is the only explicit conclusion in the argument; the second is a premise that supports that conclusion. - the first is not the conclusion

D. The first is a premise that has been used to support the prediction that the argument seeks to make; the second is a judgment that, if true, will support the prediction. - yes

E. The first is a premise that has been used to support the conclusion that the argument seeks to establish; the second is that conclusion. - this is close, but the conclusion is not "As a result, he, indeed, made no foes but his dilly-dally approach won him no friends either. " but rather that the senator will lose in the elections
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
P
Joined: 27 Aug 2014
Posts: 358
Location: Netherlands
Concentration: Finance, Strategy
Schools: LBS '22, ISB '21
GPA: 3.9
WE: Analyst (Energy and Utilities)
Re: Political Analyst: Senator Frank’s odds  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Jul 2019, 08:50
IMO answer is D:

The argument is arrranged as conclusion - premise - premise- premise -premise.
clearly all are supporting the conclusion, while third premise is a sought of judgement.
so D it is iMo
Manager
Manager
avatar
S
Joined: 12 Mar 2019
Posts: 158
Re: Political Analyst: Senator Frank’s odds  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Jul 2019, 08:56
1
Conclusion : Incumbent candidate will win the election
First statement acts like a statement or observation / premise and 2nd statement is support to the main conclusion .

A. The first is a position that the argument seeks to challenge; the second is a judgment in support of the position that the argument seeks to establish. : Wrong, Argument is not challenged by this
B. The first is a premise that has been used to support the position that the argument seeks to challenge; the second is a judgment that weakens that position. : Argument is not challenging his onw position, further 2nd is only supporting not weaking
C. The first is the only explicit conclusion in the argument; the second is a premise that supports that conclusion. : Wrong, First is not conclusion
D. The first is a premise that has been used to support the prediction that the argument seeks to make; the second is a judgment that, if true, will support the prediction. : Correct : Prediction is candidate will win and 2nd statement clearly support this prediction
E. The first is a premise that has been used to support the conclusion that the argument seeks to establish; the second is that conclusion. : 2nd is not conclusion
Manager
Manager
User avatar
G
Joined: 08 Jan 2018
Posts: 129
CAT Tests
Political Analyst: Senator Frank’s odds  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post Updated on: 24 Jul 2019, 00:16
In this argument, the Political Analyst is making a prediction. The prediction is that “With the self-earned reputation of a soft leader, he must see the writing on the wall.”
Both the boldface supports this prediction.

A. The first is a position that the argument seeks to challenge; the second is a judgment in support of the position that the argument seeks to establish.
1st BF does not challenge the argument.

B. The first is a premise that has been used to support the position that the argument seeks to challenge; the second is a judgment that weakens that position.
The 2nd BF does not weaken the position.

C. The first is the only explicit conclusion in the argument; the second is a premise that supports that conclusion.
1st BF is not the conclusion.

D. The first is a premise that has been used to support the prediction that the argument seeks to make; the second is a judgment that, if true, will support the prediction.
As said above, both the BFs support the prediction of the Analyst.

E. The first is a premise that has been used to support the conclusion that the argument seeks to establish; the second is that conclusion.
2nd BF is not the conclusion.

Answer D

Originally posted by Sayon on 23 Jul 2019, 08:58.
Last edited by Sayon on 24 Jul 2019, 00:16, edited 1 time in total.
Director
Director
User avatar
V
Joined: 28 Jul 2016
Posts: 654
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Human Resources
GPA: 3.97
WE: Project Management (Investment Banking)
Reviews Badge
Re: Political Analyst: Senator Frank’s odds  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Jul 2019, 09:00
Political Analyst: Senator Frank’s odds are low in the upcoming elections. The incumbent contestant seemingly had a clear political style of avoiding foes. When the conservatives pressed hard on their demand, Senator Frank gave in, when the liberals pressed hard, he did not disappoint. As a result, he, indeed, made no foes but his dilly-dally approach won him no friends either. With the self-earned reputation of a soft leader, he must see the writing on the wall.


The incumbent contestant seemingly had a clear political style of avoiding foes. Not a conclusion but a premise used by author .
As a result, he, indeed, made no foes but his dilly-dally approach won him no friends either. : usage of words a a result states its a conclusion .
E best matches

In the argument given, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

A. The first is a position that the argument seeks to challenge; the second is a judgment in support of the position that the argument seeks to establish. /He never challenges his position
B. The first is a premise that has been used to support the position that the argument seeks to challenge; the second is a judgment that weakens that position.: they are not contradictory
C. The first is the only explicit conclusion in the argument; the second is a premise that supports that conclusion.Not a conclusion, it a premise
D. The first is a premise that has been used to support the prediction that the argument seeks to make; the second is a judgment that, if true, will support the prediction. Author makes no explicit prediction
E. The first is a premise that has been used to support the conclusion that the argument seeks to establish; the second is that conclusion.Matches a sexpected
GMAT Club Legend
GMAT Club Legend
User avatar
V
Joined: 18 Aug 2017
Posts: 5289
Location: India
Concentration: Sustainability, Marketing
GPA: 4
WE: Marketing (Energy and Utilities)
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member CAT Tests
Re: Political Analyst: Senator Frank’s odds  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Jul 2019, 09:01
Political Analyst: Senator Frank’s odds are low in the upcoming elections. The incumbent contestant seemingly had a clear political style of avoiding foes. When the conservatives pressed hard on their demand, Senator Frank gave in, when the liberals pressed hard, he did not disappoint. As a result, he, indeed, made no foes but his dilly-dally approach won him no friends either. With the self-earned reputation of a soft leader, he must see the writing on the wall.

In the argument given, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

A. The first is a position that the argument seeks to challenge; the second is a judgment in support of the position that the argument seeks to establish.
B. The first is a premise that has been used to support the position that the argument seeks to challenge; the second is a judgment that weakens that position.
C. The first is the only explicit conclusion in the argument; the second is a premise that supports that conclusion.
D. The first is a premise that has been used to support the prediction that the argument seeks to make; the second is a judgment that, if true, will support the prediction.
E. The first is a premise that has been used to support the conclusion that the argument seeks to establish; the second is that conclusion.

IMO E is correct
Manager
Manager
User avatar
G
Joined: 28 Jan 2019
Posts: 127
Location: Peru
Premium Member
Political Analyst: Senator Frank’s odds  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post Updated on: 23 Jul 2019, 20:31
Political Analyst: Senator Frank’s odds are low in the upcoming elections. The incumbent contestant seemingly had a clear political style of avoiding foes. When the conservatives pressed hard on their demand, Senator Frank gave in, when the liberals pressed hard, he did not disappoint. As a result, he, indeed, made no foes but his dilly-dally approach won him no friends either. With the self-earned reputation of a soft leader, he must see the writing on the wall.

Premises:

The incumbent contestant seemingly had a clear political style of avoiding foes - When the conservatives pressed hard on their demand, Senator Frank gave in, when the liberals pressed hard, he did not disappoint.

As a result, he, indeed, made no foes but his dilly-dally approach won him no friends either

Intermediate Conclusion:

he must see the writing on the wall

Main Conclusion / Prediction:

Senator Frank’s odds are low in the upcoming elections

In the argument given, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

A. The first is a position that the argument seeks to challenge; the second is a judgment in support of the position that the argument seeks to establish. - first is supporting the prediction, so incorrect
B. The first is a premise that has been used to support the position that the argument seeks to challenge; the second is a judgment that weakens that position.- first is supporting the prediction, so incorrect
C. The first is the only explicit conclusion in the argument; the second is a premise that supports that conclusion. - first is supporting the prediction, so it is not the conclusion, so incorrect
D. The first is a premise that has been used to support the prediction that the argument seeks to make; the second is a judgment that, if true, will support the prediction. - looks good
E. The first is a premise that has been used to support the conclusion that the argument seeks to establish; the second is that conclusion. - actually all support the prediction that the argument establishes,so not accurate

So (D) is our answer.

Originally posted by Mizar18 on 23 Jul 2019, 09:01.
Last edited by Mizar18 on 23 Jul 2019, 20:31, edited 1 time in total.
Director
Director
avatar
P
Joined: 24 Nov 2016
Posts: 798
Location: United States
Re: Political Analyst: Senator Frank’s odds  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Jul 2019, 09:11
Quote:
Political Analyst: Senator Frank’s odds are low in the upcoming elections. The incumbent contestant seemingly had a clear political style of avoiding foes. When the conservatives pressed hard on their demand, Senator Frank gave in, when the liberals pressed hard, he did not disappoint. As a result, he, indeed, made no foes but his dilly-dally approach won him no friends either. With the self-earned reputation of a soft leader, he must see the writing on the wall.

In the argument given, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

A. The first is a position that the argument seeks to challenge; the second is a judgment in support of the position that the argument seeks to establish.
B. The first is a premise that has been used to support the position that the argument seeks to challenge; the second is a judgment that weakens that position.
C. The first is the only explicit conclusion in the argument; the second is a premise that supports that conclusion.
D. The first is a premise that has been used to support the prediction that the argument seeks to make; the second is a judgment that, if true, will support the prediction.
E. The first is a premise that has been used to support the conclusion that the argument seeks to establish; the second is that conclusion.


Argument: the analyst claims that the senator's odds are low, because the senator style of not making enemies hasn't made him any friends either.
[1 bold]: premise used to support the analysts claim/conclusion;
[2 bold]: claim confirming that the senator's style hasn't made him any friends or enemies.

Answer (A).
SVP
SVP
User avatar
P
Joined: 03 Jun 2019
Posts: 1850
Location: India
Premium Member Reviews Badge CAT Tests
Re: Political Analyst: Senator Frank’s odds  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Jul 2019, 09:12
1
Political Analyst: Senator Frank’s odds are low in the upcoming elections. The incumbent contestant seemingly had a clear political style of avoiding foes. When the conservatives pressed hard on their demand, Senator Frank gave in, when the liberals pressed hard, he did not disappoint. As a result, he, indeed, made no foes but his dilly-dally approach won him no friends either. With the self-earned reputation of a soft leader, he must see the writing on the wall.

Conclusion/Prediction: With the self-earned reputation of a soft leader, he must see the writing on the wall.
First Boldface: The incumbent contestant seemingly had a clear political style of avoiding foes. This is a premise supporting the main conclusion/prediction.
Second Boldface: As a result, he, indeed, made no foes but his dilly-dally approach won him no friends either. This is a judgement supporting the main conclusion/prediction.

In the argument given, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

A. The first is a position that the argument seeks to challenge; the second is a judgment in support of the position that the argument seeks to establish.
The first is NOT a position that the argument seeks to challenge. Incorrect

B. The first is a premise that has been used to support the position that the argument seeks to challenge; the second is a judgment that weakens that position.
The first is NOT a premise that has been used to support the position that the argument seeks to challenge; the second is NOT a judgment that weakens that position. Incorrect

C. The first is the only explicit conclusion in the argument; the second is a premise that supports that conclusion.
The first is NOT the only explicit conclusion in the argument; the second is NOT a premise that supports that conclusion. Incorrect

D. The first is a premise that has been used to support the prediction that the argument seeks to make; the second is a judgment that, if true, will support the prediction.
The first is a premise that has been used to support the prediction that the argument seeks to make; the second is a judgment that, if true, will support the prediction. Correct

E. The first is a premise that has been used to support the conclusion that the argument seeks to establish; the second is that conclusion.
The first is a premise that has been used to support the conclusion that the argument seeks to establish; the second is NOT that conclusion. Incorrect

IMO D
_________________
"Success is not final; failure is not fatal: It is the courage to continue that counts."

Please provide kudos if you like my post. Kudos encourage active discussions.

My GMAT Resources: -

Efficient Learning
All you need to know about GMAT quant

Tele: +91-11-40396815
Mobile : +91-9910661622
E-mail : kinshook.chaturvedi@gmail.com
Manager
Manager
User avatar
G
Joined: 10 Mar 2019
Posts: 75
Location: Russian Federation
Schools: Booth '22, Haas '22
GMAT 1: 730 Q50 V39
GPA: 3.95
Re: Political Analyst: Senator Frank’s odds  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Jul 2019, 09:18
1
Political Analyst: Senator Frank’s odds are low in the upcoming elections. The incumbent contestant seemingly had a clear political style of avoiding foes. When the conservatives pressed hard on their demand, Senator Frank gave in, when the liberals pressed hard, he did not disappoint. As a result, he, indeed, made no foes but his dilly-dally approach won him no friends either. With the self-earned reputation of a soft leader, he must see the writing on the wall.

In the argument given, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

The first is a premise and the second is the author's opinion.

A. The first is a position that the argument seeks to challenge; the second is a judgment in support of the position that the argument seeks to establish. ---the author does not challenge the first.
B. The first is a premise that has been used to support the position that the argument seeks to challenge; the second is a judgment that weakens that position. --- the author does not challenge any positions in the argument
C. The first is the only explicit conclusion in the argument; the second is a premise that supports that conclusion. ----the first is definitely not a conclusion.
D. The first is a premise that has been used to support the prediction that the argument seeks to make; the second is a judgment that, if true, will support the prediction. -- yes, we have some sort of prediction is the last sentence of the argument. and yes, the argument as a whole is written to make this prediction, thus this option is correct
E. The first is a premise that has been used to support the conclusion that the argument seeks to establish; the second is that conclusion. -- the second is not really a conclusion but an evaluation of the premises
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 10 May 2018
Posts: 17
Re: Political Analyst: Senator Frank’s odds  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Jul 2019, 09:19
Political Analyst: Senator Frank’s odds are low in the upcoming elections. The incumbent contestant seemingly had a clear political style of avoiding foes. When the conservatives pressed hard on their demand, Senator Frank gave in, when the liberals pressed hard, he did not disappoint. As a result, he, indeed, made no foes but his dilly-dally approach won him no friends either. With the self-earned reputation of a soft leader, he must see the writing on the wall.

In the argument given, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

The fact that the incumbent contestant had a style of avoiding foes seems to make the Senator's odds higher in the upcoming election. The use of the word "seemingly" indicates that the author will argue why this statement will actually not be helpful to Senator Frank's election bid.

A. The first is a position that the argument seeks to challenge; the second is a judgment in support of the position that the argument seeks to establish.
The position that the argument seeks to challenge is whether or not Senator has a high chance in the election, not if he made foes. As stated in the next sentence in the bold, the argument actually agrees that he made no foes.
B. The first is a premise that has been used to support the position that the argument seeks to challenge; the second is a judgment that weakens that position.
Correct. As explained above, the sentence seems to support higher chances for Senator Frank but the second explains why that sentence does not actually mean there are higher chances for Senator Frank's election
C. The first is the only explicit conclusion in the argument; the second is a premise that supports that conclusion.
The use of "only" is a red flag. There is a clear conclusion in the first sentence of the paragraph so this cannot be true.
D. The first is a premise that has been used to support the prediction that the argument seeks to make; the second is a judgment that, if true, will support the prediction.
The first bolded sentence goes against the author's intention that Senator Frank's chances are low (explained at the top), so it cannot support the argument the author is making
E. The first is a premise that has been used to support the conclusion that the argument seeks to establish; the second is that conclusion.
Same logic as for D, the first bolded sentence does not support the conclusion of the argument
Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 24 Jun 2019
Posts: 112
Political Analyst: Senator Frank’s odds  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post Updated on: 23 Jul 2019, 22:23
1
Political Analyst: Senator Frank’s odds are low in the upcoming elections. The incumbent contestant seemingly had a clear political style of avoiding foes. When the conservatives pressed hard on their demand, Senator Frank gave in, when the liberals pressed hard, he did not disappoint. As a result, he, indeed, made no foes but his dilly-dally approach won him no friends either. With the self-earned reputation of a soft leader, he must see the writing on the wall.

In the argument given, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

ANALYSIS:
Franks odd are low (prediction)..... frank avoided foes (comment about frank, trying to explain basis of prediction)...... frank gave in to conservatives and liberals..... he made no foes but no friends (cause/basis of prediction)...... he sees writing on wall

Options with prefix X are discarded

X A. The first is a position that the argument seeks to challenge; the second is a judgment in support of the position that the argument seeks to establish.
>> No. The argument is not challenging any position. Entire argument is only supporting a prediction. second may be right, not sure if its a judgement, but it does support the position that frank is going to lose. Since 1st is clearly wrong, OPTION IS DISCARDED

X B. The first is a premise that has been used to support the position that the argument seeks to challenge; the second is a judgment that weakens that position.
>> There is no position that argument is trying to challenge, so first cannot support it which does not exist. Second is not weakening any position as there is no opposing position established in the argument anywhere.... (This option is quite similar to D, but this assumes the existence of an opposing postion that frank is going to win and that the argument is challenging that position.... It is not our job to assume what is not written)... DISCARDED

X C. The first is the only explicit conclusion in the argument; the second is a premise that supports that conclusion.
>> First is not any kind of conclusion. Second cannot support what is not a conclusion. DISCARDED

D. The first is a premise that has been used to support the prediction that the argument seeks to make; the second is a judgment that, if true, will support the prediction.
>> THIS SEEMS CORRECT. Yes, the prediction is that frank will lose, and it is based on premise that his strategy has been avoiding foes. 2nd is a judgement that will support the prediction if it is true that he did not win any friends.... Lets stil evaluate option E to be sure.

X E. The first is a premise that has been used to support the conclusion that the argument seeks to establish; the second is that conclusion.
>> First is supporting a prediction rather than a conclusion. Second is not a conclusion. Argument is not trying to conclusde that frank has no friends. This is just supporting the prediction that frank will lose... DISCARDED

ANSWER: D

Originally posted by Vinit1 on 23 Jul 2019, 09:23.
Last edited by Vinit1 on 23 Jul 2019, 22:23, edited 1 time in total.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
P
Joined: 10 Jan 2017
Posts: 330
Location: India
Reviews Badge CAT Tests
Re: Political Analyst: Senator Frank’s odds  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Jul 2019, 09:43
IMO correct answer is B

Political Analyst: Senator Frank’s odds are low in the upcoming elections. The incumbent contestant seemingly had a clear political style of avoiding foes. When the conservatives pressed hard on their demand, Senator Frank gave in, when the liberals pressed hard, he did not disappoint. As a result, he, indeed, made no foes but his dilly-dally approach won him no friends either. With the self-earned reputation of a soft leader, he must see the writing on the wall.

In the argument given, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

A. The first is a position that the argument seeks to challenge; the second is a judgment in support of the position that the argument seeks to establish. - Clearly the second statement is not a support of the position that the argument is trying to establish - Discard.
B. The first is a premise that has been used to support the position that the argument seeks to challenge; the second is a judgment that weakens that position. - The first one is a premise, this is a statement of an observed fact that the author has used to portray a support to the position as a whole the argument has tried to challenge; Now the second one is the Judgement that is weakening the position - Correct
C. The first is the only explicit conclusion in the argument; the second is a premise that supports that conclusion. - The first statement is nit the explicit conclusion - Discard
D. The first is a premise that has been used to support the prediction that the argument seeks to make; the second is a judgment that, if true, will support the prediction. argument is not seeking to make the prediction looks true, Discard.
E. The first is a premise that has been used to support the conclusion that the argument seeks to establish; the second is that conclusion; Second one is not the conclusion.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
P
Joined: 12 Dec 2015
Posts: 439
Re: Political Analyst: Senator Frank’s odds  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Jul 2019, 09:48
1
Political Analyst: Senator Frank’s odds are low in the upcoming elections. The incumbent contestant seemingly had a clear political style of avoiding foes. When the conservatives pressed hard on their demand, Senator Frank gave in, when the liberals pressed hard, he did not disappoint. As a result, he, indeed, made no foes but his dilly-dally approach won him no friends either. With the self-earned reputation of a soft leader, he must see the writing on the wall.

In the argument given, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

Analysis:
Conclusion/prediction: Senator Frank’s odds are low in the upcoming elections
BF1: supporting premise: The incumbent contestant seemingly had a clear political style of avoiding foes
BF2: supporting premise: Frank made no foes but his dilly-dally approach won him no friends either


A. The first is a position that the argument seeks to challenge; the second is a judgment in support of the position that the argument seeks to establish. --> BF1 doesn't challenge the position, it supports the prediction
B. The first is a premise that has been used to support the position that the argument seeks to challenge; the second is a judgment that weakens that position. --> BF2 supports the prediction
C. The first is the only explicit conclusion in the argument; the second is a premise that supports that conclusion. --> BF1 is not the conclusion, BF1 is a supporting premise
D. The first is a premise that has been used to support the prediction that the argument seeks to make; the second is a judgment that, if true, will support the prediction. --> correct
E. The first is a premise that has been used to support the conclusion that the argument seeks to establish; the second is that conclusion. --> BF2 is a supporting premise, not the conclusion
GMAT Club Bot
Re: Political Analyst: Senator Frank’s odds   [#permalink] 23 Jul 2019, 09:48

Go to page    1   2   3   4    Next  [ 65 posts ] 

Display posts from previous: Sort by

Political Analyst: Senator Frank’s odds

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  





Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne