According to the last pre-election poll in Whippleton, most voters

Question

Which of the following most logically completes the passage?

According to the last pre-election poll in Whippleton, most voters believe that the three problems government needs to address, in order of importance, are pollution, crime, and unemployment. Yet in the election, candidates from parties perceived as strongly against pollution were defeated, while those elected were all from parties with a history of opposing legislation designed to reduce pollution. These results should not be taken to indicate that the poll was inaccurate, however, since __________.

(A) some voters in Whippleton do not believe that pollution needs to be reduced
 
(B) every candidate who was defeated had a strong antipollution record
 
(C) there were no issues other than crime, unemployment, and pollution on which the candidates had significant differences of opinion
 
(D) all the candidates who were elected were perceived as being stronger against both crime and unemployment than the candidates who were defeated
 
(E) many of the people who voted in the election refused to participate in the poll

Whippleton Poll  
 
   Step 1: Identify the Question

This is a fill in the blank question. The word since before the blank indicates you are asked to support the preceding conclusion, so this is a  Strengthen the Argument  question.

Step 2: Deconstruct the Argument

Voter issues based on poll:

1) Pollution

2) Crime

3) Unemp

But anti-pollut party lost

The conclusion of the argument includes a   double negative  , which can make things a little confusing; election results do not indicate that the poll was inaccurate. In other words, even given the election results, the poll could be accurate

Step 3: Pause and State the Goal

On Strengthen questions, the goal is to find an answer that  supports the conclusion . In this case, you are looking for information that supports the accuracy of the poll, which found pollution to be the most important problem, in the face of election results in which the anti-pollution party lost.

Step 4: Work from Wrong to Right

(A) If anything, this information suggests the poll may not be accurate because some voters do not care about pollution. Additionally, the poll provides results for most voters, so some voters could still believe pollution was unimportant even if most believe it is the highest priority.

(B) This information could actually lead to questioning the accuracy of the poll. One explanation for the election results could have been that the particular candidates from the anti-pollution party were not strongly anti-pollution themselves. This answer excludes that possibility.

(C) This answer does not speak to the accuracy of the poll because   other issues are not included in the poll  . It does suggest that voters likely did not decide based on other issues (beyond the three in the poll) because there were not significant differences between the candidates.

(D) CORRECT . Even if voters prioritize pollution in their concerns, they might care more about crime and unemployment combined than they do pollution on its own. These voters would choose a candidate who matches their views on both crime and unemployment over one who only matches only on pollution. This could explain the election results with the poll still being accurate.

(E) This information calls the accuracy of the poll into question. If many voters choose   not to participate in the poll  , the sample for the poll may   not be representative of voters in general  .

IanStewart · Accepted Answer

There seems to be some support for answer E here, and I just wanted to point out why E is not correct. E would provide a good explanation of why the poll didn't predict the election result correctly, because if many people refused to take the poll, there'd be good reason to think the poll inaccurate. But if you read the stem carefully, that's the opposite of what we're trying to do:

These results should not be taken to indicate that the poll was inaccurate, however, since ________

We're trying to find a reason why the poll could be  accurate  and yet the election result could still be what it was. E doesn't do that, because E suggests the poll was  not  accurate. Only answer D does what we want - explains why voters might still care most about pollution, as the poll says, yet vote for other candidates.

abhimahna · Answer

Polls said people want government to work on pollution, crime, and unemployment,in order of importance.

Elections ruled out those people who were strongly supporting anti pollution.

Still elections were correct. We need to find out why.

We can say may be these elections show some other benefit of selecting those who were opposing anti pollution laws.

(A) some voters in Whippleton do not believe that pollution needs to be reduced. -->  Some donot believe, what about others? We don't know.

(B) every candidate who was defeated had a strong antipollution record -->  We already know this. But it is not telling us reason that elections were accurate.

(C) there were no issues other than crime, unemployment, and pollution on which the candidates had significant differences of opinion. -->  Fine, we don't care even if there were. Then why still those supporters got rejected.

(D) all the candidates who were elected were perceived as being stronger against both crime and unemployment than the candidates who were defeated. -->  Benefits of two problems is more than just one. So, that is why they chose the opposing party. Since, two problems out of three could be solved.

(E) many of the people who voted in the election refused to participate in the poll. -->  Tempting BUT we are given "most voters believe that" and not most people. Hence, incorrect.

MY friend, this statement talks about many people while the argument talks abut most voters. That means, we are talking about voters only out of those pre polls. Hence, this statement is incorrect.

david2099 · Answer

Can anyone explain that why E is wrong? Because if most of the people who voted in the election are those who did not participated in the poll then we can not say that poll results are inaccurate.

Lucy Phuong · Answer

Hi experts GMATNinja , GMATNinjaTwo , mikemcgarry , could you please help solve my concern? Thank you. I'm confused of this phrase "in order of important". In my opinion, I understand that the phrase implies that 3 factors mentioned are arranged in an order of important (btw, why "important", but not "importance"???). And then, I wonder which order of importance should be inferred from stimulus? - pollution > crime > employment - or, pollution < crime < employment Initially, I thought that the first order is correct, that's why I'm confused with option (D). If pollution is ranked the most important, then more favoring on crime and employment is not necessarily strong enough for the unexpected candidates to be elected. What do you think about this?

mikemcgarry · Answer

Dear Lucy Phuong, I'm happy to respond. :-)

First of all, I want to apologize for the typo. When ganand posted the question, which is GMAT OG CR #626, he mistyped " important " rather than the correct word, " importance ." I corrected that typo in the above text. It's extremely important to be completely accurate in posting the text of official questions. You're also correct that there is potentially something a little bit vague here. Typically, for clarity, people would often say " in the order of increasing importance " or " in the order of decreasing importance ." I would say that we can thinking about it this way. When we are taking about " order ," some list in the " order of ," order is fundamentally numerical in nature. Every order list has a first element, a second element, and so forth. Thus, in some formal way, the enumeration of elements on a list is like counting the positive integers. Naturally, we are free to count forward or backwards, but what's the default standard way to count? Of course, forward, starting with 1. Thus, the default way of giving an ordered list starts in the same say, with the 1st element, then the 2nd element, etc. With this in mind, it's clear that pollution is the #1 problem, crime is #2, and unemployment is #3. Does all this make sense? Mike :-)

Lucy Phuong · Answer

Thanks Mike

+kudos to you Just wanna make sure whether I understand your post. So I guess you suggest the order of important should be, by default, arranged this way: pollution < crime < unemployment ?

mikemcgarry · Answer

Dear Lucy Phuong, I'm happy to respond. :-)

My friend, I am not sure how you are using the inequalities signs. Are you using them as true inequality signs or as substitute arrows? With all due respect, your use of the inequality signs is considerably more ambiguous than anything about the text. The order in the text implies pollution = #1 priority, the most important, the greatest importance, the highest priority crime = #2 priority unemployment = #3 priority, the least important of the three Does this make sense? Mike :-)

sagarsangani123 · Answer

According to the last pre-election poll in Whippleton, most voters believe that the three problems government needs to address, in order of importance, are pollution, crime, and unemployment. Yet in the election, candidates from parties perceived as strongly against pollution were defeated, while those elected were all from parties with a history of opposing legislation designed to reduce pollution. These results should not be taken to indicate that the poll was inaccurate, however, since __________.

We need to think of reasons to why does the author say that the results should not be taken to indicate that the pool was inaccurate.

(A) some voters in Whippleton do not believe that pollution needs to be reduced - if some voters do not believe that pollution needs to be reduced, these voters could have voted for either parties. Maybe the voter could have voted for the party whose candidates were perceived as strongly against pollution because this party might have worked on addressing problems of crime and unemployment. The voter could also have voted for the parties which had a long history of opposing legislation designed to reduce pollution, because that is all that mattered to the voter. However, this does not give a reason as to why the polls should not be considered as inaccurate despite showing the results against what was expected. Additionally, the premise mentions that 'most' voters believe. This answer choice just provides additional information by stating that some voters do not believe - Reject

(B) every candidate who was defeated had a strong antipollution record - Repeats the premise. Does not give a reason for not doubting the polls accuracy. - Reject

(C) there were no issues other than crime, unemployment, and pollution on which the candidates had significant differences of opinion - Though this might tell us that voters had to make a choice in voting for the candidates that helped further the cause that voters believed in, which in this case was address problems of pollution, crime and unemployment in order of importance. If the candidates that voters needed to choose from had significant difference of opinions only in these 3 areas, then this could be the reason that some candidates won and some lost. Though, this does not provide a reason for not doubting the accuracy of the polls. - Reject

(D) all the candidates who were elected were perceived as being stronger against both crime and unemployment than the candidates who were defeated - Since the order of importance of problems that voters believed should be addressed by the winning parties was pollution, crime and unemployment. Just because the party which lost was perceived strongly to reduce pollution doesn't make the poll inaccurate. The voters chose the other candidates because these candidates were perceived as being stronger against both crime and unemployment than the candidates who were defeated. This does give us a reason not to doubt the accuracy of the poll. The candidates won fair and square in lines with what the voters believed in Bingo!

(E) many of the people who voted in the election refused to participate in the poll - Thus, there were few people who participated in the poll. Thus the poll is not fully representative of the voter's belief. The author says that polls should not be considered inaccurate and our job is to find a reason why does the author say so. This option tries to void the conclusion itself, stating that what the author is stating around accuracy of poll is plain wrong. - Reject

Some kudos would do no harm

A thorough analysis of my post would just help me reach 700+!

CrackverbalGMAT · Answer

According to the pre-election poll-
Most voters believe that the three problems the government needs to address, in order of importance, are pollution, crime, and unemployment.
 Yet , candidates who were against pollution were defeated and candidates from parties with a history of opposing legislation designed to reduce pollution were elected.
However, these results do not indicate that the poll was inaccurate  BECAUSE -
We need to find an option that tells us why candidates from parties with a history of opposing legislation designed to reduce pollution were elected and why candidates who were against pollution were defeated.

(A) some voters in Whippleton do not believe that pollution needs to be reduced
We cannot generalize based on what some voters believed.  Eliminate .

(B) every candidate who was defeated had a strong antipollution record.
It is already stated in the information given that - candidates from parties perceived as strongly against pollution were defeated. 
B doesn’t tell us why the poll cannot be considered inaccurate.  Eliminate .

(C) there were no issues other than crime, unemployment, and pollution on which the candidates had significant differences of opinion.
Why were the candidates who were against pollution defeated? C doesn’t tell us why the other candidates were elected.  Eliminate .

(D) all the candidates who were elected were perceived as being stronger against both crime and unemployment than the candidates who were defeated
This tells us the reason why we should consider the poll result accurate. 
Even though the candidates were from parties with a history of opposing legislation designed to reduce pollution, they were stronger against both crime and unemployment than the candidates who were defeated.  Correct .

(E) many of the people who voted in the election refused to participate in the poll
If anything, this only tells us why the poll result shouldn’t be considered accurate.  Eliminate .

Vishnupriya
GMAT Verbal SME

behlmanmeet · Answer

abhimahna   mikemcgarry   IanStewart 
 GMATNinja 
Hi Experts,

I have read all the arguments presented for D, but I am still confused. Please help me out.
My reasoning:

Conclusion: These results should not be taken to indicate that the poll was inaccurate, however.
Pre-Thinking: The candidates selected are perceived as strongly in a combination of issues but candidates not selected focus or are perceived as strongly only on individual issues.

Option:
(D) all the candidates who were elected were perceived as being stronger against both crime and unemployment than the candidates who were defeated
Now, this option is along my pre-thinking but some words make me think otherwise.
The option suggests that all the candidates who were elected were perceived as being  stronger  against both crime and unemployment than non-selected. The word  stronger  implies that the ones not selected were perceived as being less stronger for these issues.

Now, this becomes an ambiguous territory.
Consider this:
Is (Strong pollution + less strong crime + less strong unemployment) < (Strong Crime+ Strong unemployment + less strong pollution) ?
The adjective stronger confuses me because it becomes a case of quantifying the order of importance in a way so that we can objectively compare combinations of issues with the degree of importance of candidates for these issues.

A candidate can be perceived as being focusing on all three issues with say strongly than other candidates on pollution but less strongly than other candidates on crime and unemployment. It fits option D but how can we decide that it explains the situation? The option doesn't even mention if people perceive a combination of say crime and unemployment more strongly than say just pollution.

RRJ12 · Answer

Hi  IanStewart

Taking your approach that we need to prove the the pre-election poll is accurate . I selected (C) since this options shows that the pre-election issues vs election issues were correctly identified , giving support to the idea that the pre poll was accurate.

In my view Option D - does nothing to suggest why the poll is correct .

Could you please correct my understanding ?

Thank you

IanStewart · Answer

The stem tells us, approximately:

• a poll says voters care most about, in order, pollution, crime, and unemployment
• the party with the worst pollution policies won
• still, the poll was accurate

Answer C tells us the parties had the same positions on every issue besides pollution, crime and unemployment. So even if voters cared about other issues, they wouldn't be able to base their votes on those issues -- the candidates were all the same. So if C is true, voters were basing their voting decisions on pollution, crime, and unemployment alone (assuming they were using policy differences as the basis for their votes). That still leaves us with a paradox: voters care most about pollution, but voted for the worst party on pollution. It still seems there's something wrong with the poll, so answer C doesn't help resolve the apparent paradox.

We want an answer that explains why the poll might be accurate -- that is, we want to assume voters truly care most about pollution -- but why voters might still have voted for the worst party on pollution. And if there are three issues voters care about, and voters care nearly equally about all three, then voters might still vote for the party best on their #2 and #3 issues, even if that party is worst on their #1 issue. That's how the poll can correctly report that voters care most about pollution, and yet we still observe the voting behaviour described in the stem, so D is right.

There are other possible answers that could have been right here -- for example, if many voters didn't care much about policy differences when voting (if they chose the most likeable candidate, say), that would also explain how this poll could be accurate, yet the worst pollution party won.

IanStewart · Answer

I think your understanding of the argument is correct, but I think you're looking for an answer choice that is stronger than what we actually need. I think you're looking for an answer that conclusively proves the poll was accurate. We don't need an answer that does nearly that much. The double-negative in the wording before the underline is potentially confusing, but rephrasing that part of the question, it says "Even though voters voted this way, the poll  might  still have been accurate because..." The right answer merely needs to suggest a reason why the poll might have been accurate despite the election result. And answer D does that, because as you point out, it's possible that the inequality I quote above is true -- it's not certain to be true, but we don't need it to be here.

Sneha2021 · Answer

KarishmaB   GMATNinja

Why E is incorrect?

(D) all the candidates who were elected were perceived as being stronger against both crime and unemployment than the candidates who were defeated

(E) many of the people who voted in the election refused to participate in the poll
If people who participated in election were different from people who took the poll, the result of poll would be different from the election results. This statement supports that poll result could be considered accurate.
I didn't understand how poll is inaccurate according to this statement.

For D, If the order of importance (pollution, crime and unemployment) is already defined in the passage, then the statement " candidates who were elected were perceived as being stronger against both crime and unemployment than the candidates who were defeated" does not change the fact that pollution was the top priority. So this statement doesn't explain the apparent paradox.

GMATNinja · Answer

Starting with (D): yes, the passage tells us that pollution was the most important issue, and that crime and unemployment were less important. However, we don't know how the  combination  of crime and unemployment stacks up against the single issue of pollution. Perhaps voters were willing to compromise on the pollution issue and support candidates who were well-aligned on the other two issues.

So, is (D) a smoking gun that absolutely  proves  that the poll was accurate? No, but that's ok. (D) gives us a reason why it might be accurate, despite the lack of alignment on the pollution issue. That's enough to make (D) the correct answer choice.

As for (E): we're looking for a reason to show that the poll is  accurate  in reporting that "most voters" held certain beliefs. (E) tells us that many voters didn't participate in the poll. If anything, that casts doubt on the accuracy of the poll's claim. Eliminate (E).

I hope that helps!

KarishmaB · Answer

Premises:
Poll showed that most voters believed that the three problems that should be addressed, in order of importance, are pollution, crime, and unemployment
Election result: Candidates from parties perceived as strongly against pollution were defeated, while those elected used to oppose laws against pollution (i.e. they were ok to continue as is without any laws against pollution)

Conclusion:
The poll may still be accurate.

We need to give a reason why it may still be accurate. It is something of a paradox. As per poll, we expected something but the result was something else. We need to provide a reason why both could be valid i.e. the poll may not have been wrong. Most voters may actually believe that the three problems that should be addressed are pollution, crime, and unemployment.

(A) some voters in Whippleton do not believe that pollution needs to be reduced

Irrelevant. We are discussing whether most voters believe that pollution needs to be reduced.

(B) every candidate who was defeated had a strong antipollution record

It mostly re-states what the argument has already given - candidates from parties against pollution were defeated.
It says that every candidate against pollution was defeated. From this it seems that voters are actually against anti-pollution measures, i.e. they want pollution to continue!

(C) there were no issues other than crime, unemployment, and pollution on which the candidates had significant differences of opinion
 
This is irrelevant. Whether there were other issues or not, doesn't matter. They were not a part of our poll. We need to find out why the polls may be accurate in suggesting that people care about these 3 issues the most.

(D) all the candidates who were elected were perceived as being stronger against both crime and unemployment than the candidates who were defeated
 
Now, here is the thing - the poll gives 3 problems that need to be addressed. People may have voted those candidates who were strongly against two of those problems even if they were noncommittal on the third problem. 
Even if pollution was the most important to address, it doesn't mean that 'addressing pollution' was a necessary condition to getting elected. 
It certainly explains why people could believe that these 3 issues need to be resolved and could have voted the way they did - in favour of resolving two of those issues. It does give support to the result of the poll.

(E) many of the people who voted in the election refused to participate in the poll

This says that many people who voted did not participate in the poll. If anything, it implies that the poll result may not be accurate, that we cannot rely on the poll results, that the sample size may have been small. Hence, when the poll says, "MOST people believe ..." - it may not be accurate. But we have to give a reason why the poll result may be accurate. We have to give a reason in favour of the poll result which this option doesn't do. 
Also, this option does not give us which were the voters who did not participate in the poll. So we should assume that the ones who refused to participate proportionally represented the population. In that case, this option may have no impact on our conclusion. 
So in any case, it certainly doesn't give data in favour of the poll's result.

Answer (D)

MoPouyan · Answer

Situation: What is Happening? 
  ✔  Poll Results: 
Before the election, a poll showed that voters identified three key problems in order of importance:
 
 Pollution (most important), 
 Crime, 
 Unemployment.  
  ✔  Election Results: 
Surprisingly, candidates from parties opposing anti-pollution legislation won.
Candidates from parties perceived as strongly supporting pollution reduction lost.

The Contradiction: 
 Why did voters not elect candidates aligned with their supposed top priority (pollution)?

Reasoning: How Can This Discrepancy Be Explained?

✔  The Question: 
How can the poll still be accurate even though the election results contradict its findings?

1-  Possible Explanation 1: 
 Other Factors Influenced Voter Choices:

Voters might have been swayed by  personal factors  like; 
 
 The candidates’ personalities. 
 Their qualifications. 
 Their advertising strategies.  
These factors might have outweighed the importance of policy positions:

2- Possible Explanation 2: 
 Candidates’ Individual Positions Differed from Party Stances:

Some candidates might have convinced voters that their personal views on issues were not the same as their party's official positions.
For example, a candidate from an anti-pollution-opposing party might have personally supported pollution reduction, which could have appealed to voters.

3- Possible Explanation 3:  
  Voters Prioritized Multiple Issues:

Although pollution was ranked as the top issue in the poll, voters might have cared about  crime and unemployment combined  more than pollution alone.
They might have chosen candidates who addressed crime and unemployment effectively, even if those candidates had weaker stances on pollution.

Key Point: 
Any statement that shows how factors like these influenced voter decisions without invalidating the poll (i.e., without claiming the poll was inaccurate) would explain the eleAnalyzing the answer choices

Analyzing the answer choices:
 
 Answer Choice A :  "Some voters in Whippleton do not believe that pollution needs to be reduced." 
 
  What it says:  This suggests that not all voters think pollution reduction is necessary. 
   Why it’s wrong:  
 
 If a significant number of voters didn’t prioritize pollution reduction, the poll itself would be inaccurate because it showed that pollution was the most important issue. 
 The question asks us to explain how the poll could still be accurate despite the election results. This answer undermines the poll’s validity instead of reconciling the poll results with the election outcome.

Answer Choice B :  "Every candidate who was defeated had a strong antipollution record." 
 
  What it says:  This claims that all the losing candidates strongly supported antipollution efforts. 
   Why it’s wrong:  
 
 This does not address why voters chose candidates from parties opposed to anti-pollution legislation. Instead, it simply describes a characteristic of the defeated candidates. 
 By highlighting this characteristic, it indirectly weakens the argument by suggesting that voters may have rejected these candidates  because  of their strong antipollution stance, which conflicts with the poll results. 
 It doesn’t provide a way to reconcile the poll’s accuracy with the election results.

Answer Choice C :  "There were no issues other than crime, unemployment, and pollution on which the candidates had significant differences of opinion." 
 
  What it says:  This eliminates the possibility that differences on  other  issues could explain the election results. 
   Why it’s wrong:  
 
 While it clarifies that crime, unemployment, and pollution were the main issues, it doesn’t explain why voters chose candidates who were less focused on pollution. 
 This choice eliminates one potential explanation (differences on other issues) but doesn’t add any new information to reconcile the poll and election results. It fails to directly address the core discrepancy.

Answer Choice D :  "All the candidates who were elected were perceived as being stronger against both crime and unemployment than the candidates who were defeated." 
 
  What it says:  Voters prioritized candidates’ positions on crime and unemployment, even if those candidates were weaker on pollution. 
   Why it’s correct:  
 
 The poll showed that voters cared about crime, unemployment, and pollution. While pollution was ranked highest, this answer suggests that voters may have seen  crime  AND  unemployment  as more critical   together   than  pollution  alone  . 
 This provides a plausible explanation for why voters chose candidates who didn’t prioritize pollution, without contradicting the poll results. 
 It directly reconciles the election outcome with the poll’s findings by showing that voters valued the candidates’ positions on crime and unemployment more.

Answer Choice E :  "Many of the people who voted in the election refused to participate in the poll." 
 
  What it says:  Many voters in the election didn’t take part in the poll. 
   Why it’s wrong:  
 
 If a large number of voters didn’t participate in the poll, it implies the poll results might not represent the actual electorate. This undermines the poll’s accuracy rather than supporting it. 
 The question specifically asks for an explanation that shows the poll could still be accurate. This answer does the opposite by casting doubt on the poll’s validity.

bhanu29 · Answer

Strengthen the conclusion, we need to find a premise that provides additional support.

These results should not be taken to indicate that the poll was inaccurate,

(A) some voters in Whippleton do not believe that pollution needs to be reduced
Irrelevant. Eliminate.
 
(B) every candidate who was defeated had a strong antipollution record
Sure, but conclusion is about poll not matching results but still being accurate.
 
(C) there were no issues other than crime, unemployment, and pollution on which the candidates had significant differences of opinion
Not really a concern. Eliminate
 
(D) all the candidates who were elected were perceived as being stronger against both crime and unemployment than the candidates who were defeated
This provides support, since winning candidates support two causes not just pollution. Keep.
 
(E) many of the people who voted in the election refused to participate in the poll
This hints at poll being not representative, but it is. ELIMINATE

Correct Answer D

According to the last pre-election poll in Whippleton, most voters

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

According to the last pre-election poll in Whippleton, most voters

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