Political Strategist: The domestic policies of our opponents in Party

Political Strategist: The domestic policies of our opponents in Party X are contrary to the priorities of many middle-class voters. Yet some of these same voters are supporters of Party X and its candidates due to the party's appeals about foreign policy. In order to win these voters back, we in Party Y must prove to middle-class voters that Party X does not represent their priorities with respect to domestic policy.

Which of the following would, if true, most strongly suggest that the political strategist's plan is unlikely to succeed?


A. Many in the middle class who support Party X for its foreign policies also support its domestic policies and are fully aware of the implications of those policies. -- CORRECT, this gives reasoning that trying to educate the middle-class voters about Party X's domestic policies won't help, because the voters already know about those policies and still stick with Party X. Thus, weakening the strategist's plan.

B. Most middle-class supporters of Party X care about foreign policy and know very little about its domestic policies. -- If this were true, it could strengthen the strategist's plan in which the strategist can sway voters by educating about party-X's domestic policies.

C. Long-term domestic policy sometimes conflicts with short-term domestic policy. -- IRRELEVANT, no mention of long-term or short-term policies in the passage

D. There are topics on which Party X and Party Y have significant agreement. -- the common topics between both parties are not at loggerheads here.

E. Some middle-class voters are concerned about both domestic and foreign policy. -- If it were true, these voters could be lured to either sides. At worst irrelevant, at best strengthens. "Some voters" also doesn't quantify how many voters(could be just 1 voter)

So, Answer is A

While your responses make sense, I just want to ask one question. Is it appropriate for this question to mention 'many'? I have to admit that it was a trap for me - I went for E, even though the context of the answer is slightly distorted and unfit.

Kindly go through this link to clear the concepts pertaining to Some, All, Not all etc...

https://e-gmat.com/blogs/negationtest/

And then apply it directly in the question it will immenesely help you.

The argument is that in order to win back the middle-class voters who voted for Party X for Party X's stance on Foreign policy Party Y must prove to these voters that Party X does not represent the middle-class voters' priorities.

The argument assumes that the voters in question aren't informed that Party X's domestic policies contradic their domestic policy priorities.

The question asks us to weaken the argument...

A is Correct because it tells us that MANY of the middle-class voters who voted for Party X are already aware of the implications, thus the plan (to inform these voters of the implications) will have no effect since voters are already aware. A exposes an assumption that is made in the argument.
B is incorrect as it strengthens the argument - if voters don't know about Party X's domestic policies, then informing these voters of Party X's domestic policies may have the intended effect that Party Y hopes for (i.e. succeed).
C is incorrect as it has no effect on whether the plan will succeed.
D is incorrect because the only topic at hand is the difference of opinion on domestic policy and the point of difference on other policies is irrelevant to the arugment that the plan will succeeed
E is incorrect because the argument is concerned only with the majority of the middle-class who are typically concerned about domestic policy. E has no effect on the argument as it does not effect the likelihood of the plan to succeed.

Hi egmat

I eliminated Answer choice A because of the word "Many", which can go from two to several people, and i think that the plan should win a considerable number of voters that support Party X to be considered successful. If I rewrite answer choice A as: "Three people in the middle class who support Party X for its foreign policies also support its domestic policies and are fully aware of the implications of those policies" then it does not undermines the political strategist's plan.

I chose answer C because i though that if long term and short term contradict each other, one of those should be along the lines of voters intentions. Voter's priorities would be satisfied either by long term or short term policy.

Kindly correct what's wrong in my analysis.

Hey Marcost,

I understand where you are coming from Let me try to help!

If this was an assumption question, then the answer choice has to be MUST BE TRUE (MBT). Then, it would not be enough that "many" of these middle class people who support party X due to its foreign policies are aware of the domestic policies, its implications and are still OK with it. Even in such a case, it could be true that there are more than enough people who will stop supporting party X once educated. The plan could still succeed.

But this is not an assumption question. For these kind of questions, the correct answer only needs to increase or decrease our belief in the conclusion.

Here the conclusion is that the plan will probably not succeed. Even if many of the middle class people who support party X due to its foreign policies are aware of the domestic policies, its implications and are still OK with it, it is enough to increase our belief that the plan may not succeed. If a great chunk of these people are already aware of the domestic policy implications and are perfectly fine with it, it increases our belief in the notion that the plan may not really succeed.


Which is why option A works. Hope this is clear. Remember - in essence, what we are looking for is a strengthener rather than an assumption. An assumption has to be true, a strengthener merely needs to increase your belief.

Option C, I am afraid is completely irrelevant here. How does the fact that there is a conflict between short term and long term domestic policy tell us anything about whether the plan will succeed or not? The argument does not make any differentiation between short term and long term policy. We do not know what the conflict is, we do not know if any of them are along the lines of voter's intentions (as you say!).

Bottom line: we know nothing from the argument, about short term vs long term domestic policy

1. Sometimes they conflict, but what about this time?
2. Even if there is a conflict, what does this mean for the concerned party (middle class folks who vote for X). For all we know, this conflict may have no implications for this group of people (unrelated conflict)
3. This plan - is it to bring back the votes from the concerned party (middle class folks who vote for X) in the short term or long term?

In the absence of such relevant data, option C is not relevant to the argument .

Hope this helps!

Regards
Harsha

I am concerned as to how the option A is correct.

In the stem, we have :

In order to win these voters back, we in Party Y must prove to middle-class voters that Party X does not represent their priorities with respect to domestic policy.

Here "these voters" represents those voters whose priorities are in contrast with the policies of the party X and its candidates.

The option A :

A. Many in the middle class who support Party X for its foreign policies also support its domestic policies and are fully aware of the implications of those policies.

In the option A, we are talking about the middle class in general, who supports domestic policies of party X.

Given the premise and conclusion is oriented towards specific section of the middle class, whose priorities are in conflict with the policies of X, why the option A should be correct, in which middle class in general is talked about.

GMATNinja, could you please help in it ?

It's the same group of people.

In order to win these voters back = the middle class voters that support Party X due to the party's appeals about foreign policy

Choice A says: Many in the middle class who support Party X for its foreign policies also support its domestic policies and are fully aware of the implications of those policies.

We're not talking about the middle class in general here -- we're talking about members of the middle class who support Party X.

If one does not read option (B) here carefully the chances are high that he or she will select it as the answer.

If I changed one word in option B, it'd become correct. The following version is correct:

Most middle-class supporters of Party X care about foreign policy and care very little about its domestic policies.

Many people marking option B don't notice that while the first part of the option talks about 'care', the second part talks about 'know'. If the second part had also talked about 'care', option B would be correct.

As is, option B indicates that the plan is likely to succeed.

Another mistake some may make is in thinking that since most middle-class supporters care about foreign policy, they don't care much about domestic policy. Isn't it common sense that we all care about multiple things? Just that middle-class supporters care about foreign policy DOES NOT MEAN that they care less about domestic policy.

We have to show that the plan will not work

A. Many in the middle class who support Party X for its foreign policies also support its domestic policies and are fully aware of the implications of those policies. This choice clearly explains that the supporter for foreign policies also support its domestic policies. Even though Party Y tries prove to middle-class voters that Party X does not represent their priorities with respect to domestic policy, it won't be able to get those votes. Correct

B. Most middle-class supporters of Party X care about foreign policy and know very little about its domestic policies. If the voters are not aware about domestic policies, there is very much possibility that they will not vote Party X after they are made aware of the domestic policies. Plan will work. Incorrect

C. Long-term domestic policy sometimes conflicts with short-term domestic policy. Doesn't explain anything. Incorrect

D. There are topics on which Party X and Party Y have significant agreement. So what? Party Y has to get back the voters of Party X. Incorrect

E. Some middle-class voters are concerned about both domestic and foreign policy. Some are concerned, some are not. We have to stick with only those voters of party Y who are supporting party Y for their foreign policies. Incorrect

I chose E. My understanding is that despite knowing domestic policies are against their priorities, these people go with party X since they are in favor of X's policies. So Y's plan is to emphasize on "domestic policies" to persuade the people out of Party X.

A. is repeating premise 1. (When I see the other answers, I thought, how do they assume that the people are not aware of these contradiction in priorities? The passage already states that domestic policies are against their priorities, which is a fact. )
E. Some middle-class voters are concerned about both foreign and domestic policies. - I think this makes more sense because they care about "both" policies. Even if you emphasize on "domestic policies", the people still care about "foreign policies". And balancing preferences for both, they have already made their decisions.

Many doesn't mean most. That's the issue.

Although if we have choose between option A and B, I will have to go with A, as option B kinda supports the party's plan.

GMATNinja , MartyMurray , avigutman , ChiranjeevSingh mikemcgarry. Could you help me with this please? 
­Stimulus - Political strategist: The domestic policies of our opponents in Party X are contrary to the priorities of many middle-class voters (Group 2+3). Yet some of these same voters (Group-2) are supporters of Party X and its candidates due to the party's appeals about foreign policy. In order to win these voters back (Group-2), we in Party Y must prove to middle-class voters that Party X does not represent their priorities with respect to domestic policy.



Option-A - Many in the middle class who support Party X for its foreign policies (group 1 + 2) also support its domestic policies and are fully aware of the implications of those policies. 
Doubt - When we are talking of Many in group 1 + 2, who support party X for its foreign policies AND also support its domestic policies, then is it not logical to think that this Many would refer to group 1 and not group 2, given that group 2 consists of people who have priorities contrasting with the domestic policy of X (so then why would they support the DP of X ?). 

I would have been much more convinced if option A read as - "Many in the middle class who support Party X for its foreign policies  also support its domestic policies and are fully aware of the implications of those policies."  In such a case, I would believe that there are people from group-2 also, that are aware of these policies & it's implications and raising awareness about it won't do much. 

Option-B - Most middle-class supporters of Party X care about foreign policy and know very little about its domestic policies.
Doubt - Also, in a statement like this, is it not reasonable to assume, that if most middle class suporters of Party X, care about foreign policy and know little about its domestic policies, then it is because they simply care more about the foreign policy. I agree that simply stating that - person A cares about FP, doesn't imply that he/she doesn't care about DP, but given that they care about FP AND know little about DP, might suggest that it is so because they want it to be so, unless there is some special reason that they have chosen to educate themselves only about Foreign Policy. 

GMATNinja , MartyMurray , avigutman , ChiranjeevSingh mikemcgarry. Could you help me with this please? 
Thanks!!­