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.
Jul 1209:30 AM EDT
-12:30 PM EDT
Increase your score with a powerful GMAT course taught live online + 6 months of access to TTP OnDemand GMAT Masterclass included! Sundays July 12, 2026-October 1, 2026, 9:30am-12:30pm EST.
Jul 1211:00 AM PDT
-12:00 PM PDT
Join us in a 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.- Jul 06
08:00 AM PDT
-05:00 PM PDT
Compete to win some amazing Prizes such as Admissions Consulting Packages, Courses, and more. This is your Best Opportunity to improve your GMAT Score! Register to Participate 
Jul 0810:00 AM EDT
-11:59 PM EDT
Receive 2 FREE hours of tutoring when you enroll in a 655+ course
Jul 1010:00 AM IST
-11:00 PM IST
Start your journey with a fully customized action plan and work with a dedicated mentor to achieve a 735+ score.
Jul 1012:00 PM PDT
-11:59 PM PDT
50% off all study plans with code PROGRESS - Expires Monday 7/13
23 Jun 2026, 19:00
Kudos
Bookmarks
B
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
55%
(hard)
Question Stats:
65% (02:06) correct
35%
(02:18)
wrong
based on 267
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.
25 Jun 2026, 11:32
Kudos
Bookmarks
Answr is B because
Originally in the argument " These elected officials are less prone to compromise, and this creates an unnecessary and harmful divide between parties", the cause mentioned is Gerrymandering.
But, B provides an alternate cause for the conclusion. It says that people with similar ideals cluster together on their own. So, the homogeneous districts are likely to exist without the manipulation
Originally in the argument " These elected officials are less prone to compromise, and this creates an unnecessary and harmful divide between parties", the cause mentioned is Gerrymandering.
But, B provides an alternate cause for the conclusion. It says that people with similar ideals cluster together on their own. So, the homogeneous districts are likely to exist without the manipulation
Bunuel
28 Jun 2026, 06:15
Kudos
Bookmarks
Bunuel
OFFICIAL EXPLANATION:
B.
Choice (A) sounds more like an additional argument in favor of gerrymandering creating an “unnecessary and harmful divide between parties,” so that answer can’t be right since it strengthens rather than weakens the original argument.
The same can be said for Choice (D); if folks are electing very similar politicians in their districts and those politicians share the same ideals, this would likely contribute to the divide between parties and help eliminate the political “middle.”
Choice (E) is irrelevant; that both sides can take part in gerrymandering doesn’t mean they do or that they do at the same time. So, that argument also falls flat.
You’ve narrowed the options down to either Choice (B) or (C). Of the two, Choice (B) is the stronger option. It presents an alternative to gerrymandering as the reason that certain districts tend to elect people from the same party over and over again, which arguably contributes to a sharper divide between parties.
Choice (B) is your best bet.
