Each increase of 1 percent in real disposable personal income per capi

Question

Each increase of 1 percent in real disposable personal income per capita will increase the share of the electorate for an incumbent by about 2.2 percentage points, other things being equal. Since 1952 there has been a decline in real disposable income during only one presidential election year. The incumbent lost that election.

Which of the following conclusions can be properly drawn from the statements above?

(A) When an incumbent runs for office, he or she is likely to win.

(B) Political parties should take care to put forth a candidate who seems prosperous.

(C) Presidential candidates should put their greatest efforts into improving their public image.

(D) Because a presidential campaign requires the expenditure of large amounts of money, it frequently impoverishes a candidate and his or her supporters.

(E) The outcome of a presidential election is substantially affected by factors other than the ideological positions of the candidates.

anordinaryguy · Accepted Answer

Argument says : 
increase in disposable personal income impacts results of presidential elections. So it can be safely conclude Ideological position of the candidate is not the only thing that impacts the result of presidential election.
Ans Option E precisely does the same.

sayantanc2k · Answer

You have yourself effectively answered your own query. 
The passage implies that A causes B. 
C is not mentioned in the passage. 
The passage implies that something other than C (i.e. A) causes B: this is option E. (However this option does not imply whether C can or cannot cause B - it just states that something other than C causes B.)

In option E, the cause C is stated as "ideological positions of the candidates". It could have been any factor other than cause A (change in real disposable income).

sleepynut · Answer

Hi all,
I agree that option E is the best of all.However,what are "ideological positions" mentioned in this choice?
This is an inference question,and there is no other information which states that there are some other factor apart from "disposable personal income per capita" which can affect the election as well.We know that A causes B;how can we conclude that there something apart from C,which is A,causes B
What am I missing?

Rohit23 · Answer

Argument says : 
increase in disposable personal income impacts results of presidential elections. So it can be safely conclude Ideological position of the candidate is not the only thing that impacts the result of presidential election. Choice E precisely does the same. Hence, E is the answer.

mba20202022 · Answer

Can anyone explain why the answer is not A?
I get the rational of E, but why can't we infer that an incumbent is likely (i.e. has high probability) to win when running for office?
We are told that only one incumbent lost since 1952, can't we infer that the probability of an incumbent to win is thus "likely"?

DmitryFarberMPrep · Answer

mba20202022 
First, a broad principle: inference questions are asking for something that is definitely true based on what we've read. So in general, be careful about any answer that tries to predict the future based on past trends. Any such prediction relies on the assumption "If things go like before . . ."

As for the particulars of this case, notice that we were never told that only this one incumbent lost. We're told that 1952 was the only election year that saw a drop in disposable income. We don't know how much of a rise (if any) occurred in other elections, so we don't know how big an edge the incumbents developed, and we certainly don't know anything about who won.

Masterclass_Space · Answer

Each increase of 1 percent in real disposable personal income per capita will increase the share of the electorate for an incumbent by about 2.2 percentage points, other things being equal. Since 1952 there has been a decline in real disposable income during only one presidential election year. The incumbent lost that election.
Which of the following conclusions can be properly drawn from the statements above?
(A) When an incumbent runs for office, he or she is likely to win. (Incorrect: no relevance)
premise is about income increase and decrease hence conclusion should be linked with winning + Income

(B) Political parties should take care to put forth a candidate who seems prosperous. (Incorrect: out of scope)
What the party should do does not matter. It should be about income plus winning possibility

(C) Presidential candidates should put their greatest efforts into improving their public image. (Incorrect: extra premise)
The premise cannot become a conclusion

(D) Because a presidential campaign requires the expenditure of large amounts of money, it frequently impoverishes a candidate and his or her supporters. (Incorrect: assumption)
Based on premise, it is assumed however inference means to conclude based on premise

(E) The outcome of a presidential election is substantially affected by factors other than the ideological positions of the candidates. (correct option)
To conclude, it needs at least two premises. This option includes both hence the best option

Azakura16 · Answer

Fact 1: Each increase of 1% in real disposable personal income per capita will increase the share of the electorate for an incumbent by about 2.2 percentage points, all else equal.
Fact 2: Since 1952 there has been a decline in real disposable income during only one presidential election year, and the incumbent lost that election.

We’re looking for an inference.
A. Not supported. In fact, the only incumbent mentioned specifically lost their reelection.
B. Not supported. No candidate personal traits are mentioned.
C. Not supported. They don’t bring up personal image at all.
D. Not supported. Nothing is said about the expenses of the candidates.
E. Supported. The % increase in real disposable income isn’t an ideological position of the candidate, but it affects the election outcome.
Best answer is E.

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot:

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

This post was generated automatically.

Each increase of 1 percent in real disposable personal income per capi

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Each increase of 1 percent in real disposable personal income per capi

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards