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

 It is currently 17 Oct 2019, 09:23

### 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

# Senator Baker: My opponent, Candidate Rothmore, has called for increas

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Intern
Joined: 16 Aug 2013
Posts: 49
Concentration: Finance, Real Estate
GPA: 3.73
WE: Analyst (Consulting)
Senator Baker: My opponent, Candidate Rothmore, has called for increas  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

Updated on: 29 Jun 2018, 02:51
1
8
00:00

Difficulty:

55% (hard)

Question Stats:

66% (02:12) correct 34% (02:12) wrong based on 507 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

The following is an excerpt from a campaign speech.

Senator Baker: My opponent, Candidate Rothmore, has called for increased taxes to fund programs that help the long-term unemployed of the state. Such action would address an immediate symptom for a select group, without doing much to address the overall problems we all face. Only through lowering taxes can we stimulate the growth of small businesses, which will revitalize the state's whole economy. That, in turn, will result in greater prosperity and in more jobs, including jobs for those who have been unemployed for a while. Through lowering taxes, everyone wins, and those currently unemployed get the best help the economy can provide --- a real job.

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

A) The first is a prediction about a recommendation the main argument opposes; the second is a conclusion drawn in order to support the main conclusion.

B) The first is evidence supporting the main argument; the second is the main conclusion.

C) The first is a prediction that, if accurate, would provide support for the main conclusion of the argument; the second is the main conclusion.

D) The first is an objection that the main argument rejects; the second is a claim advanced in support of the main conclusions of the argument.

E) The first is a conclusion drawn by Senator Baker's opponent; the second is Senator Baker's main conclusion.

Originally posted by tia2112 on 09 Jun 2015, 12:48.
Last edited by Bunuel on 29 Jun 2018, 02:51, edited 4 times in total.
Boldfaced relevant part
Manager
Joined: 10 Mar 2014
Posts: 180
Re: Senator Baker: My opponent, Candidate Rothmore, has called for increas  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 Dec 2015, 06:06
Hi mikemcgarry

The first is a prediction about a recommendation the main argument opposes

where we are opposing this prediction in argument.

Thanks.
Board of Directors
Status: QA & VA Forum Moderator
Joined: 11 Jun 2011
Posts: 4775
Location: India
GPA: 3.5
Re: Senator Baker: My opponent, Candidate Rothmore, has called for increas  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

29 May 2016, 01:00
Video explanation of the question provided by Magoosh -

http://gmat.magoosh.com/questions/3117/ ... xplanation

Hope this helps ....
_________________
Thanks and Regards

Abhishek....

PLEASE FOLLOW THE RULES FOR POSTING IN QA AND VA FORUM AND USE SEARCH FUNCTION BEFORE POSTING NEW QUESTIONS

How to use Search Function in GMAT Club | Rules for Posting in QA forum | Writing Mathematical Formulas |Rules for Posting in VA forum | Request Expert's Reply ( VA Forum Only )
Intern
Joined: 22 Dec 2015
Posts: 35
Re: Senator Baker: My opponent, Candidate Rothmore, has called for increas  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

29 May 2016, 23:29
1
1
Hi ashutoshsh,

The option D states: The first is an objection that the main argument rejects; the second is a claim advanced in support of the main conclusions of the argument.

While you might be right that the first boldface statement is an objection but it is not something that argument rejects. It is something that the argument states. The Senator states that: Such action would address an immediate symptom for a select group, without doing much to address the overall problems we all face. He clearly states the flaws in the opponents plan and then goes on to state his plan, that if implemented will address the issue that the state is facing.

That is how I rejected the option D. Hope it helped!

PS: I have not gone through the video explanation. I am not sure if the same thing has been mentioned there.
Current Student
Joined: 04 Dec 2016
Posts: 2
GMAT 1: 650 Q46 V34
GMAT 2: 580 Q38 V31
GMAT 3: 660 Q44 V38
Re: Senator Baker: My opponent, Candidate Rothmore, has called for increas  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Mar 2017, 23:19
A) The first is a prediction about a recommendation the main argument opposes; the second is a conclusion drawn in order to support the main conclusion.
Correct. Baker opposes the conclusion he draws from his candidates proposal. Then has an intermediate conclusion supporting the main conclusion

B) The first is evidence supporting the main argument; the second is the main conclusion.
The first statement does not support the argument.

C) The first is a prediction that, if accurate, would provide support for the main conclusion of the argument; the second is the main conclusion.
The first statement does not support the conclusion of the argument.

D) The first is an objection that the main argument rejects; the second is a claim advanced in support of the main conclusions of the argument.
The first statement is not an objection, but rather a conclusion drawn from Rothmore's plan

E) The first is a conclusion drawn by Senator Baker's opponent; the second is Senator Baker's main conclusion.
The first statement is a conclusion drawn by Baker, not Rothmore
Senior Manager
Joined: 24 Jun 2012
Posts: 365
Location: Pakistan
GPA: 3.76
Re: Senator Baker: My opponent, Candidate Rothmore, has called for increas  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Mar 2017, 23:27
2
Candidate Rothmore make a recommendation that the argument by Senator Baker opposes through predicting that it can only help a small group. The last line of the argument is main conclusion second last line is also a conclusion drawn supporting main conclusion so A it is
dav90 wrote:
tia2112 wrote:
The following is an excerpt from a campaign speech.

Senator Baker: My opponent, Candidate Rothmore, has called for increased taxes to fund programs that help the long-term unemployed of the state. Such action would address an immediate symptom for a select group, without doing much to address the overall problems we all face. Only through lowering taxes can we stimulate the growth of small businesses, which will revitalize the state's whole economy. That, in turn, will result in greater prosperity and in more jobs, including jobs for those who have been unemployed for a while. Through lowering taxes, everyone wins, and those currently unemployed get the best help the economy can provide --- a real job.

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

A) The first is a prediction about a recommendation the main argument opposes; the second is a conclusion drawn in order to support the main conclusion.

B) The first is evidence supporting the main argument; the second is the main conclusion.

C) The first is a prediction that, if accurate, would provide support for the main conclusion of the argument; the second is the main conclusion.

D) The first is an objection that the main argument rejects; the second is a claim advanced in support of the main conclusions of the argument.

E) The first is a conclusion drawn by Senator Baker's opponent; the second is Senator Baker's main conclusion.

Kudos.. Kudos Kudos for a BOLDFACE

I doubt OA.
1st statement is not opposing anything

_________________
Push yourself again and again. Don't give an inch until the final buzzer sounds. -Larry Bird
Success isn't something that just happens - success is learned, success is practiced and then it is shared. -Sparky Anderson
-S
Senior SC Moderator
Joined: 14 Nov 2016
Posts: 1348
Location: Malaysia
Re: Senator Baker: My opponent, Candidate Rothmore, has called for increas  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Mar 2017, 06:11
tia2112 wrote:
The following is an excerpt from a campaign speech.

Senator Baker: My opponent, Candidate Rothmore, has called for increased taxes to fund programs that help the long-term unemployed of the state. Such action would address an immediate symptom for a select group, without doing much to address the overall problems we all face. Only through lowering taxes can we stimulate the growth of small businesses, which will revitalize the state's whole economy. That, in turn, will result in greater prosperity and in more jobs, including jobs for those who have been unemployed for a while. Through lowering taxes, everyone wins, and those currently unemployed get the best help the economy can provide --- a real job.

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

A) The first is a prediction about a recommendation the main argument opposes; the second is a conclusion drawn in order to support the main conclusion.

B) The first is evidence supporting the main argument; the second is the main conclusion.

C) The first is a prediction that, if accurate, would provide support for the main conclusion of the argument; the second is the main conclusion.

D) The first is an objection that the main argument rejects; the second is a claim advanced in support of the main conclusions of the argument.

E) The first is a conclusion drawn by Senator Baker's opponent; the second is Senator Baker's main conclusion.

OFFICIAL SOLUTION

The first bold statement is a gloomy prediction about what would happen under the opponent's (Candidate Rothmore's) plan. The second bold statement is a prediction about what would follow from Senator Baker's own plan. Both are predictions: the speaker oppose the first and valorizes the second. Baker's main conclusion is in the final sentence, not part of the bold text.

The credited answer is (A): The first is a prediction about Rothmore's plan, which Baker opposes. The second cited as a consequence of Baker's own plan, which in turn supports the main conclusion.
(B) is wrong: neither of the boldface sections could be called evidence.
(C) is wrong because the first bold statement does not support the main conclusion in any way. Also, the second bold statement, by itself, is not the main conclusion.
(D) is wrong because the first bold statement is not an objection.
(E) is tricky: technically, the first bold statement is probably not what Rothmore would conclude on his own. It's how Baker is characterizing (probably mischaracterizing) Rothmore's position. Opposing political candidates rare present each other's positions in a totally objected and even-handed manner. Also, the second bold statement, by itself, is not the main conclusion.
_________________
"Be challenged at EVERY MOMENT."

“Strength doesn’t come from what you can do. It comes from overcoming the things you once thought you couldn’t.”

"Each stage of the journey is crucial to attaining new heights of knowledge."

Manager
Joined: 18 Mar 2015
Posts: 117
Location: India
Schools: ISB '19
GMAT 1: 600 Q47 V26
GPA: 3.59
Re: Senator Baker: My opponent, Candidate Rothmore, has called for increas  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 May 2017, 01:16
powellmittra wrote:
Hi ashutoshsh,

The option D states: The first is an objection that the main argument rejects; the second is a claim advanced in support of the main conclusions of the argument.

While you might be right that the first boldface statement is an objection but it is not something that argument rejects. It is something that the argument states. The Senator states that: Such action would address an immediate symptom for a select group, without doing much to address the overall problems we all face. He clearly states the flaws in the opponents plan and then goes on to state his plan, that if implemented will address the issue that the state is facing.

That is how I rejected the option D. Hope it helped!

PS: I have not gone through the video explanation. I am not sure if the same thing has been mentioned there.

thanks for this wonderful explanation. I also choose option D
Senior Manager
Joined: 17 Sep 2016
Posts: 284
Re: Senator Baker: My opponent, Candidate Rothmore, has called for increas  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Sep 2017, 05:07
hi mikemcgarry

Answer D confuses me a lot

D) The first is an objection that the main argument rejects; the second is a claim advanced in support of the main conclusions of the argument.

this is my interpretation of answer choice D as following
first boldface is objection, and this objection is not what Senator Baker agrees.

as prompt, Senator Baker does disagree with the first boldface, so I view first boldface as objection
while, the OA states "(D) is wrong because the first bold statement is not an objection"

Zoe
VP
Joined: 12 Dec 2016
Posts: 1492
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V33
GPA: 3.64
Re: Senator Baker: My opponent, Candidate Rothmore, has called for increas  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

11 Jan 2018, 06:43
there is one thing unclear about A. That is to say, it is ambiguous that the main conclusion opposes to "a prediction" or "a recommendation.
Nevertheless, A is still better than C b/c the second cannot be the main conclusion, and the ambiguity in A is acceptable.
Intern
Joined: 25 Jul 2017
Posts: 10
Re: Senator Baker: My opponent, Candidate Rothmore, has called for increas  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

11 Jan 2018, 08:10
Which statement is the conclusion?
"Only through lowering taxes can we stimulate the growth of small businesses, which will revitalize the state's whole economy." or " Through lowering taxes, everyone wins, and those currently unemployed get the best help the economy can provide --- a real job"
Intern
Joined: 24 Nov 2015
Posts: 15
Location: India
Re: Senator Baker: My opponent, Candidate Rothmore, has called for increas  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

11 Jan 2018, 09:07
zoezhuyan wrote:
hi mikemcgarry

Answer D confuses me a lot

D) The first is an objection that the main argument rejects; the second is a claim advanced in support of the main conclusions of the argument.

this is my interpretation of answer choice D as following
first boldface is objection, and this objection is not what Senator Baker agrees.

as prompt, Senator Baker does disagree with the first boldface, so I view first boldface as objection
while, the OA states "(D) is wrong because the first bold statement is not an objection"

Zoe

Zoe - Please look closely. Although first is an objection, it is an objection towards the opponent and not the main conclusion of the argument given by Baker himself. Instead, The first boldface lines actually supports and not object the main argument or the main conclusion. If you negate this line, then it goes against the views of Baker. In fact, the first boldface line are the views of Baker himself in support of his main conclusion.
Please let me know if you are still confused.
VP
Joined: 12 Dec 2016
Posts: 1492
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V33
GPA: 3.64
Re: Senator Baker: My opponent, Candidate Rothmore, has called for increas  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

11 Jan 2018, 09:39
panthersarkar wrote:
Which statement is the conclusion?
"Only through lowering taxes can we stimulate the growth of small businesses, which will revitalize the state's whole economy." or " Through lowering taxes, everyone wins, and those currently unemployed get the best help the economy can provide --- a real job"

sometimes, a sentence just merely summarize or paraphrase the main idea of an argument. It seems that the last sentence does such job in this question. The conclusion here is what is opposite to the first sentence. In other words, this is the conclusion "Through lowering taxes, everyone wins, and those currently unemployed get the best help the economy can provide --- a real job."
SC Moderator
Joined: 23 Sep 2015
Posts: 1716
Re: Senator Baker: My opponent, Candidate Rothmore, has called for increas  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Mar 2018, 02:17
Honestly, it is mainly between A and E.

I have rejected E cause First part seems quiet wrong. First is conclusion of senator from the perception of his opponent's statements. Very fine line over there.

_________________
Thanks!
Do give some kudos.

Simple strategy:
“Once you’ve eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”

GMAT Ninja YouTube! Series 1| GMAT Ninja YouTube! Series 2 | How to Improve GMAT Quant from Q49 to a Perfect Q51 | Time management

My Notes:
Reading comprehension | Critical Reasoning | Absolute Phrases | Subjunctive Mood
Re: Senator Baker: My opponent, Candidate Rothmore, has called for increas   [#permalink] 25 Mar 2018, 02:17
Display posts from previous: Sort by