Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
May 1912:00 PM PDT
-01:00 PM PDT
Scoring 329 on the GRE is not always about using more books, more courses, or a longer study plan. In this episode of GRE Success Talks, Ashutosh shares his GRE preparation strategy, study plan, and test-day experience, explaining how he kept his prep....
May 1212:00 PM EDT
-11:59 PM EDT
Make the most of your break with the most realistic GMAT™ prep. Take up to $700 off select products. Ends 6/1
May 1501:00 PM IST
-11:00 AM IST
Start your journey with a fully customized action plan and work with a dedicated mentor to achieve a 735+ score.- May 18
10:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Join us in a live GMAT practice session and solve 25 challenging GMAT questions with other test takers in timed conditions, covering GMAT Quant, Data Sufficiency, Data Insights, Reading Comprehension, and Critical Reasoning questions. - Jun 10
06:00 AM PDT
-06:15 PM PDT
Register for the GMAT Club Virtual MBA Spotlight Fair – the world’s premier event for serious MBA candidates. This is your chance to hear directly from Admissions Directors at nearly every Top 30 MBA program..
30 Apr 2024, 01:41
Kudos
Bookmarks
B
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
65%
(hard)
Question Stats:
58% (02:18) correct
42%
(02:27)
wrong
based on 281
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
The process of “gerrymandering,” or manipulating voter-district boundaries so that one party gains a considerable advantage in a district over another, is making the modern political climate more divisive than ever. It ensures that people with likeminded ideals end up densely packed in the same districts, and those people then elect officials who also share those likeminded ideals. These elected officials are less prone to compromise, and this creates an unnecessary and harmful divide between parties.
Assuming all the following statements are true, which would most significantly weaken the argument made above?
(A) Gerrymandering sets up an unfair advantage by creating some districts that are nearly guaranteed to vote for a particular party, thereby freeing up more time and resources for that party to campaign elsewhere.
(B) People with likeminded ideals have an innate desire to live alongside others who share similar belief systems, regardless of their political affiliation.
(C) All elected officials are typically strong in their convictions.
(D) When people with likeminded ideals live in the same district, they tend to continuously elect politicians with very similar beliefs.
(E) Gerrymandering can be executed by both political parties.
Assuming all the following statements are true, which would most significantly weaken the argument made above?
(A) Gerrymandering sets up an unfair advantage by creating some districts that are nearly guaranteed to vote for a particular party, thereby freeing up more time and resources for that party to campaign elsewhere.
(B) People with likeminded ideals have an innate desire to live alongside others who share similar belief systems, regardless of their political affiliation.
(C) All elected officials are typically strong in their convictions.
(D) When people with likeminded ideals live in the same district, they tend to continuously elect politicians with very similar beliefs.
(E) Gerrymandering can be executed by both political parties.
B should be the answer.
The conclusion is that the unnecessary and harmful divide is created amongst parties because of gerrymandering.
Option B suggests that people with like minded ideas ( who take part in gerry mandering ) are more inclined to stay with others irrespective of their political lineage.
Hence we can say that the unnecessary and harmful divide is NOT created amongst parties because of gerrymandering.
B is the weakener and should be the answer.
Posted from my mobile device
The conclusion is that the unnecessary and harmful divide is created amongst parties because of gerrymandering.
Option B suggests that people with like minded ideas ( who take part in gerry mandering ) are more inclined to stay with others irrespective of their political lineage.
Hence we can say that the unnecessary and harmful divide is NOT created amongst parties because of gerrymandering.
B is the weakener and should be the answer.
Posted from my mobile device
Shwarma
Joined: 10 Sep 2023
Last visit: 25 May 2025
Posts: 210
Given Kudos: 65
Location: India
Schools: Tepper '27 Ross '27 Foster '27 Kellogg
GMAT Focus 1: 655 Q82 V83 DI84 
GPA: 4
Products:
30 Apr 2024, 06:24
Kudos
Bookmarks
Conclusion:
Politicians elected at majority in a district, don't compromise-> making the divide between parties more strong, thus Gerrymandering is bad.
Weaken the idea.
Something that breaks the connection between --> voter segregation and the stand of politicians.
A- Not related
B- Doesn't talk about politicians and their stand etc
C- All politicians have strong convictions --> so irrespective of whether you are majority voted or not you will NOT compromise. So it weakens the reasoning that --> Since you are majority voted you tend not to compromise leading to divisiveness.
D- re-stating the premise
E- kinda strengthening the argument?
Politicians elected at majority in a district, don't compromise-> making the divide between parties more strong, thus Gerrymandering is bad.
Weaken the idea.
Something that breaks the connection between --> voter segregation and the stand of politicians.
A- Not related
B- Doesn't talk about politicians and their stand etc
C- All politicians have strong convictions --> so irrespective of whether you are majority voted or not you will NOT compromise. So it weakens the reasoning that --> Since you are majority voted you tend not to compromise leading to divisiveness.
D- re-stating the premise
E- kinda strengthening the argument?
