Political analysts have, time and again, indulged in vigorous berating

Question

Political analysts have, time and again, indulged in vigorous berating of the Electoral College, claiming that  it is, technically,not a purely democratic method of selecting a president  and that it ought to be superseded by declaring the candidate who receives the most popular votes the winner. The most far-reaching consequence of the Electoral College is that it has led to the development of two political parties that strive for broad appeal. Most other democracies have dozens of parties, many with very narrow agendas. With so many parties dividing the legislature, it can be difficult to get them to agree on anything. But the Electoral College requires a candidate to win a majority of electoral votes; if there were three or more parties, this would almost never happen. Thus, the Electoral College contributes to the political stability of the nation by encouraging a two- party system and  discouraging the proliferation of splinter parties such as those that have plagued many other democracies.

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

A. The first states the position that the argument as a whole opposes; the second provides evidence to undermine the support for the position being opposed.

B. The first states the position that the argument as a whole opposes; the second provides evidence that has been used to support the position being opposed.

C. The first states the position that the argument as a whole opposes; the second calls this position into question.

D. The first states a position that the argument evaluates in reaching its main conclusion; the second has been used to support that conclusion.

E. The first states a position that the argument seeks to establish; the second provides evidence in support of that position.

AbhishekDhanraJ72 · Answer

In boldface question always find conclusion first then relates bolfaces to conclusion. Here in this questiion, the conclusion is  Thus, the Electoral College contributes to the political stability of the nation by encouraging a two- party system  . Now, 1st boldface does nothing much to conclusion but it is opposite of what the conclusion says, and 2nd boldface supports the conclusion.

a. The first states the position that the argument as a whole opposes: Right ; the second provides evidence to undermine the support for the position being opposed: Wrong . Overall:  Wrong

b. The first states the position that the argument as a whole opposes:  Right  ; the second provides evidence that has been used to support the position being opposed: Wrong . Overall:  Wrong

c. The first states the position that the argument as a whole opposes: Right ; the second calls this position into question: Wrong . Overall:  Wrong

d. The first states a position that the argument evaluates in reaching its main conclusion:  Right  ; the second has been used to support that conclusion:  Right . Overall: Right

e. The first states a position that the argument seeks to establish: Wrong ; the second provides evidence in support of that position: Wrong . Overall:  Wrong

ektavarshney22 · Answer

A, B, and C get eliminated because the argument is not opposing the first bold statement. It is evaluating the first bold statement.
It is not saying that the Electoral College is a purely democratic method of selecting a president. 
Political analysts say the consequence of the electoral system is a two-party system (hence not purely democratic) and the argument says that two-party system contributes to stability.

E gets eliminated because the first statement is not something the argument wants to establish.

D is the answer because the first state a position that the argument evaluates in reaching its main conclusion (the Electoral College contributes to the political stability of the nation) and the second is in support of the conclusion

Ohanna512 · Answer

Hello,

I was rightly able to eliminate Options C, E, B
But was confused between A and D-
Can you please explain why the second half of A is incorrect- Why can't BF2 be considered an evidence

Best Regards, 
O

guddo · Answer

Political analysts have, time and again, indulged in vigorous berating of the Electoral College, claiming that  it is, technically,not a purely democratic method of selecting a president  and that it ought to be superseded by declaring the candidate who receives the most popular votes the winner. The most far-reaching consequence of the Electoral College is that it has led to the development of two political parties that strive for broad appeal. Most other democracies have dozens of parties, many with very narrow agendas. With so many parties dividing the legislature, it can be difficult to get them to agree on anything. But the Electoral College requires a candidate to win a majority of electoral votes; if there were three or more parties, this would almost never happen. Thus, the Electoral College contributes to the political stability of the nation by encouraging a two- party system and  discouraging the proliferation of splinter parties such as those that have plagued many other democracies.

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

The author begins by presenting a criticism of the Electoral College: it is not a purely democratic method of selecting a president. The author then argues that the Electoral College has an important benefit: it encourages a two-party system and discourages splinter parties.  So BF1 is a position the argument considers , while BF2 supports the author’s final conclusion about  political stability .

(A) The first states the position that the argument as a whole opposes; the second provides evidence to undermine the support for the position being opposed.

Incorrect. BF2 is evidence, but (A) describes the wrong target of that evidence. BF2 does not undermine the support for the claim that the Electoral College is not purely democratic. That claim may still be true.

(B) The first states the position that the argument as a whole opposes; the second provides evidence that has been used to support the position being opposed.

Incorrect. BF2 does not support the criticism of the Electoral College. It supports the author’s defense of the Electoral College.

(C) The first states the position that the argument as a whole opposes; the second calls this position into question.

Incorrect. BF2 does not call BF1 into question. It does not show that the Electoral College is democratic. It gives a separate benefit of the Electoral College.

(D) The first states a position that the argument evaluates in reaching its main conclusion; the second has been used to support that conclusion.

Correct.   BF1 is the criticism being considered. BF2 supports the author’s main conclusion that the Electoral College contributes to national political stability by discouraging splinter parties.

(E) The first states a position that the argument seeks to establish; the second provides evidence in support of that position.

Incorrect. The author is not trying to establish that the Electoral College is not purely democratic.

Answer: (D)

The problem with (A) is not the word  evidence . BF2 is evidence.

The problem is the role that (A) assigns to BF2. BF2 does not undermine the claim that the Electoral College is not purely democratic. That claim can still be true.

BF2 supports the author’s own conclusion: the Electoral College contributes to political stability by discouraging  splinter parties .

Also, the author is not mainly opposing BF1 itself. The author is opposing the recommendation that the Electoral College should be replaced.

So (A) misdescribes both the target and the function. (D) is better.

egmat · Answer

Hi Ohanna512,

You're right that the fight is really between A and D, and both start by treating the first boldface as "the opposing position." So the whole decision comes down to what the  second  boldface actually does. Let's put A's wording under a microscope.

A says the second boldface  "provides evidence to undermine the support for the position being opposed."  Read that carefully - it makes two promises:

- there is some  support  (evidence) backing the analysts' criticism, and
- the second boldface  attacks  that support.

Now check the stimulus. The analysts' position is just stated: the Electoral College  "is not a purely democratic method... and ought to be superseded."  The argument never lays out any evidence  for  that criticism. So there is no "support for the opposed position" sitting there for BF2 to knock down. A is describing a demolition job on something that was never built.

What BF2 actually does:  "The most far-reaching consequence of the Electoral College is that it has led to the development of two political parties that strive for broad appeal."  That's a positive, forward-building claim. It feeds straight into the author's final conclusion - that the Electoral College creates stability through a two-party system. It is a  premise for the author's own case , not an attack on the analysts. That's exactly what D captures:  "the second has been used to support that conclusion."

The trap is that "support my view" and "undermine their view"  feel  interchangeable - help one side, hurt the other. But structurally they're different moves, and GMAT scores the move that's literally on the page. BF2 constructs; it doesn't destroy.

One quick way to feel the difference  - imagine the second boldface were instead:

"Critics claim the College is undemocratic, but their data actually counted votes twice."

That  would undermine support for the opposed position - and A would fit. Since the real BF2 does nothing like that, and instead advances the author's own conclusion,  D  is the only match.

Answer: D

Political analysts have, time and again, indulged in vigorous berating

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Political analysts have, time and again, indulged in vigorous berating

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards