Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases https://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 23 May 2017, 19:50

### 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

# Politician: From the time our party took office almost four

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Intern
Joined: 18 Mar 2009
Posts: 17
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 1

Politician: From the time our party took office almost four [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Feb 2010, 08:24
5
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

9% (01:36) correct 91% (01:46) wrong based on 26 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Politician: From the time our party took office almost four years ago the number of people unemployed city-wide increased by less than 20 percent. The opposition party controlled city government during the four preceding years, and the number of unemployed city residents rose by over 20 percent. Thus, due to our leadership, fewer people now find themselves among the ranks of the unemployed, whatever the opposition may claim.
The reasoning in the politician’s argument is most vulnerable to the criticism that
(A) the claims made by the opposition are simply dismissed without being specified
(B) no evidence has been offered to show that any decline in unemployment over the past four years was uniform throughout all areas of the city
(C) the issue of how much unemployment in the city is affected by seasonal fluctuations is ignored
(D) the evidence cited in support of the conclusion actually provides more support for the denial of the conclusion
(E) the possibility has not been addressed that any increase in the number of people employed is due to programs supported by the opposition party

Medical research findings are customarily not made public prior to their publication in a medical journal that has had them reviewed by a panel of experts in a process called peer review. It is claimed that this practice delays public access to potentially beneficial information that, in extreme instances, could save lives. Yet prepublication peer review is the only way to prevent erroneous and therefore potentially harmful information from reaching a public that is ill equipped to evaluate medical claims on its own. Therefore, waiting until a medical journal has published the research findings that have passed peer review is the price that must be paid to protect the public from making decisions based on possibly substandard research.
The argument assumes that
(A) unless medical research findings are brought to peer review by a medical journal, peer review will not occur
(B) anyone who does not serve on medical review panel does not have the necessary knowledge and expertise to evaluate medical research finding
(C) the general public does not have access to the medical journals in which research findings are published
(D) all medical research findings are subjected to prepublication peer review
(E) peer review panels are sometimes subject to political and professional pressures that can make their judgments less than impartial
[Reveal] Spoiler:
B

how to approach these type CR i have difficulty in identifying the conclusion and premise
If you have any questions
New!
Senior Manager
Joined: 24 Jul 2009
Posts: 293
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 147 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

08 Feb 2010, 08:34
arghya05 wrote:
Politician: From the time our party took office almost four years ago the number of people unemployed city-wide increased by less than 20 percent. The opposition party controlled city government during the four preceding years, and the number of unemployed city residents rose by over 20 percent. Thus, due to our leadership, fewer people now find themselves among the ranks of the unemployed, whatever the opposition may claim.
The reasoning in the politician’s argument is most vulnerable to the criticism that
(A) the claims made by the opposition are simply dismissed without being specified
(B) no evidence has been offered to show that any decline in unemployment over the past four years was uniform throughout all areas of the city
(C) the issue of how much unemployment in the city is affected by seasonal fluctuations is ignored
(D) the evidence cited in support of the conclusion actually provides more support for the denial of the conclusion
(E) the possibility has not been addressed that any increase in the number of people employed is due to programs supported by the opposition party

Medical research findings are customarily not made public prior to their publication in a medical journal that has had them reviewed by a panel of experts in a process called peer review. It is claimed that this practice delays public access to potentially beneficial information that, in extreme instances, could save lives. Yet prepublication peer review is the only way to prevent erroneous and therefore potentially harmful information from reaching a public that is ill equipped to evaluate medical claims on its own. Therefore, waiting until a medical journal has published the research findings that have passed peer review is the price that must be paid to protect the public from making decisions based on possibly substandard research.
The argument assumes that
(A) unless medical research findings are brought to peer review by a medical journal, peer review will not occur
(B) anyone who does not serve on medical review panel does not have the necessary knowledge and expertise to evaluate medical research finding
(C) the general public does not have access to the medical journals in which research findings are published
(D) all medical research findings are subjected to prepublication peer review
(E) peer review panels are sometimes subject to political and professional pressures that can make their judgments less than impartial
[Reveal] Spoiler:
B

how to approach these type CR i have difficulty in identifying the conclusion and premise

A and B resp.
Intern
Joined: 18 Mar 2009
Posts: 17
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

08 Feb 2010, 08:39
[Reveal] Spoiler:
D
Senior Manager
Joined: 24 Jul 2009
Posts: 293
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 147 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

08 Feb 2010, 09:34
arghya05 wrote:
[Reveal] Spoiler:
D

On second thought, i think it should be D because:

1) In the present government rule: The no. of unemployed people increased by 20%.
2) During the last government Rule: The no. of unemployed resident were over 20%.

The first case is the % increase in unemployment and the second case is the absolute value.
Intern
Joined: 07 Feb 2010
Posts: 1
Followers: 0

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

### Show Tags

08 Feb 2010, 11:45
1. IMO E, ignores the possibility that prior efforts of the opposition led to the current increase in employment
2. IMO C

What are the OAs?
Manager
Joined: 28 Aug 2009
Posts: 187
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 80 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

08 Feb 2010, 13:06
Should be A nad D respectivey,will esplain only after OA is shared
Manager
Joined: 02 Oct 2009
Posts: 193
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 20 [0], given: 4

### Show Tags

08 Feb 2010, 13:30
(B) no evidence has been offered to show that any decline in unemployment over the past four years was uniform throughout all areas of the city - is vulnerable to the criticism because it leaves out criticism entirely...!

(B) anyone who does not serve on medical review panel does not have the necessary knowledge and expertise to evaluate medical research finding - Assumption trumps A because responsibility peer review brings which is already unstated in the stem...!

Even though A is nearlly as tempting response... I support the responsible assumption over the process based assumption... A leans on the fact the journals get published after research if formally completed... with a hint that researchers may pass on the pre-reads to peer reviewers...
Manager
Joined: 26 Nov 2009
Posts: 166
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 57 [0], given: 5

### Show Tags

16 Feb 2010, 04:12
1.

D) the evidence cited in support of the conclusion actually provides more support for the denial of the conclusion

conclusion : fewer unemployed than previous era
if there is increase in the unemployment rate however lesser it may be then the total number of unemployed residents will be greater which is against the conclusion

so ans is D
Manager
Joined: 26 Nov 2009
Posts: 166
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 57 [0], given: 5

### Show Tags

16 Feb 2010, 04:12
2.

Yet prepublication peer review is the only way to prevent erroneous and therefore potentially harmful information

the above statement to be valies choice B is mandatory
so ans is B
Senior Manager
Joined: 21 Dec 2009
Posts: 265
Location: India
Followers: 10

Kudos [?]: 252 [0], given: 25

### Show Tags

16 Feb 2010, 06:54
_________________

Cheers,
SD

Director
Joined: 12 Oct 2008
Posts: 547
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 482 [0], given: 2

### Show Tags

23 Feb 2010, 19:46
IMO E & C
Intern
Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Posts: 41
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

23 Feb 2010, 20:11
1. I was debating between A & D, then thought of putting some numbers into the question...

Assume the number of unemployed were 100 in the beginning
After the end of opposition party, the number of unemployed city residents rose by over 20 percent -> lets assume it rose by 30%...so total number of unemployed will be 130 at the end of first 4 years

Now the politicians party says that the number of people unemployed city-wide increased by less than 20 percent -> lets assume it rose by 15%...so now the total number of unemployed will be (130*0.15) = 149.5 = 150

So when the politician says that fewer people now find themselves among the ranks of the unemployed, he is actually contradicting himself, hence answer is D

Note: Passage does not talk about employment at all, so I did not consider how many were employed in either 4-year terms...

2. The questions mentions twice that the public does not have the necessary knowledge and expertise to evaluate medical research finding in public that is ill equipped to evaluate medical claims on its own and protect the public from making decisions based on possibly substandard research

So you can easily eliminate all options and the answer is B
Manhattan GMAT Instructor
Affiliations: ManhattanGMAT
Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Posts: 348
Location: San Francisco
Followers: 518

Kudos [?]: 1415 [2] , given: 11

### Show Tags

23 Feb 2010, 20:51
2
KUDOS
Hey All,

Two great questions arghya. Thanks for bringing them in. Lots of different answers circulating around, so I thought I'd go through them with method and see where we end up. The answers, as far as I can tell, should be D for the politician question and A for the medical question.

1.

The first question, with the politician, is a weaken question. With these, it's important to look as closely as possible at the premises and the conclusion. Make sure you don't change the words as they're written to fix a bad argument. Often, the arguments made in CR passages are so terrible that, in taking notes, you end up making them better. Don't do it!

Politician: From the time our party took office almost four years ago the number of people unemployed city-wide increased by less than 20 percent. The opposition party controlled city government during the four preceding years, and the number of unemployed city residents rose by over 20 percent. Thus, due to our leadership, fewer people now find themselves among the ranks of the unemployed, whatever the opposition may claim.

Conclusion: Fewer people are unemployed because of party
Premise: Our party saw unemployment increase by less than 20%, other party by more than 20%

At first glance, this may look like a typical "percent isn't the same as number" kind of question. But look closely at the conclusion. The party is saying fewer people are unemployed, when they admit that there was an INCREASE in unemployment! Just because it was less than 20% doesn't make it a decrease. In reality, the fact cited totally undermines that conclusion.

The reasoning in the politician’s argument is most vulnerable to the criticism that
(A) the claims made by the opposition are simply dismissed without being specified
Problem: This argument has nothing to do with what the opposition did or didn't do. In fact, all that stuff about opposition is a big red herring. All we care about is whether or not there are "fewer people" unemployed now than before the party took power.

(B) no evidence has been offered to show that any decline in unemployment over the past four years was uniform throughout all areas of the city
Problem: Unemployment density is immaterial; we just need the overall number.

(C) the issue of how much unemployment in the city is affected by seasonal fluctuations is ignored
Problem: This doesn't address the data we've been given, and is irrelevant.

(D) the evidence cited in support of the conclusion actually provides more support for the denial of the conclusion
Answer: Yep. If unemployment INCREASED, even by 2%, that would lead one to the conclusion that MORE people are unemployed, not fewer.

(E) the possibility has not been addressed that any increase in the number of people employed is due to programs supported by the opposition party
Problem: This is tempting, because it makes it sound like the opposition might have had some effect on a later increase in employment. However, there was no increase! There was only a decrease of "less than 20%".

2.

Medical research findings are customarily not made public prior to their publication in a medical journal that has had them reviewed by a panel of experts in a process called peer review. It is claimed that this practice delays public access to potentially beneficial information that, in extreme instances, could save lives. Yet prepublication peer review is the only way to prevent erroneous and therefore potentially harmful information from reaching a public that is ill equipped to evaluate medical claims on its own. Therefore, waiting until a medical journal has published the research findings that have passed peer review is the price that must be paid to protect the public from making decisions based on possibly substandard research.

This is an assumption question, so we need to look at the conclusion and premises once again.

Conclusion: Medical journal peer review is only way people can avoid bad research.
Premises: Research subject to peer review before publication in journals, to be sure false research doesn't get out

(A) unless medical research findings are brought to peer review by a medical journal, peer review will not occur
ANSWER: When in doubt about the correct answer on an assumption question, try the NOT test. Take the opposite of this answer choice. "Peer Review can occur without being brought to peer review by a medical journal" [my paraphrase]. Uh-oh. Now we don't need to get peer review from a journal, so the journal itself is not the only way to protect the public.

(B) anyone who does not serve on medical review panel does not have the necessary knowledge and expertise to evaluate medical research finding
PROBLEM: This is tempting because the passage says something close to it. But we don't care if SOME people have the expertise outside of the panel itself. It's enough to know that some people don't. I can see that A LOT of you liked this answer choice. Be wary of picking something because the passage says something close to it. The passage says that SOME people don't have the necessary knowledge to evaluate research, not ALL of them. The "anyone" here goes WAY too far.

(C) the general public does not have access to the medical journals in which research findings are published
PROBLEM: Once the journals are released, the info has been peer reviewed. In reality, we NEED the public to have access to the journals.

(D) all medical research findings are subjected to prepublication peer review
PROBLEM: "All" is always a dangerous word, so be careful of it. Let's try the not test: "All medical research findings are NOT subjected to prepublication peer review." But couldn't that be because they aren't published at all? We don't need ALL medical research findings to get the review, just the stuff that might get out to the public.

(E) peer review panels are sometimes subject to political and professional pressures that can make their judgments less than impartial
PROBLEM: This hurts our argument, because we want people on the peer review panels to be protecting the public.

Hope that helps!
_________________

Tommy Wallach | Manhattan GMAT Instructor | San Francisco

Manhattan GMAT Discount | Manhattan GMAT Reviews

GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10370
Followers: 996

Kudos [?]: 224 [0], given: 0

Re: Politician: From the time our party took office almost four [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 May 2015, 03:15
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.
Re: Politician: From the time our party took office almost four   [#permalink] 16 May 2015, 03:15
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
Politician: The Green Party proclaims itself the only party in the cou 2 29 Apr 2017, 08:52
1 Personnel officer: The exorbitant cost of our health-insuran 2 05 Jan 2014, 06:06
6 Politician: My opponent says our zoning laws too strongly 9 13 Jul 2016, 01:32
15 Politician: Since my administration has entered office, the 10 26 Mar 2016, 15:37
15 Personnel officer: The exorbitant cost of our 13 01 May 2017, 21:32
Display posts from previous: Sort by