The fundamental relationship in United States politics at the state

Question

The fundamental relationship in United States politics at the state and city levels is that between client and patron: favors are sought, and the politician who can promise to supply them is supported. This same relationship operates at the congressional level as well.

One may wish that the client-patron relationship did not operate in Congress, but the existence of the relationship must be acknowledged if one is to understand the basic issues of morality in politics. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine how, without some such relationship, a national legislature could operate at all in a country in which the interests that have to be reconciled are so many, so scattered, and so diverse. There are bargains to be struck, and Congress is the place where the multifarious local and even private interests of the entire nation are brought into an orderly relationship. Representatives and senators spend much of their time buttonholing colleagues to ask for support in a committee or subcommittee for appropriations or measures that are desirable for their particular districts or states, in return for the promise that similar favors will be given in the future.

The principle of amicitial, the responsible friendship that was a sacred agreement for the Roman politician, must supersede the principles of the client¬patron relationship.  Favors are still involved in amicitial, but they are political in the truest sense.  A candidate for the presidency who forms an amicitial with a governor or a mayor enters an alliance in the strictest political meaning: a president does not buy a mayor, any more than a mayor buys a president, with cash payments.

The political price that is paid is seen in terms not only of the immediate benefits that it will bring, such as the winning of an election, but of the opportunity that it provides to continue, after the election, the pursuit of political objectives that are beyond mere ambition. Ultimately, there can be no morality in politics—and no possibility of it—if those who hold the highest positions have no sense of amicitial and of its meaning in the process of politics.  
 1 
 1. It can be inferred that a political favor “in the truest sense” ( highlighted text ) is one that

(A) involves both private and public commercial interests
(B) demands benefits for a particular constituency as well as for the politician who represents it
(C) provides reciprocal payments in both financial and political support
(D) involves only candidates for high federal positions
(E) represents an exchange of confidence and mutual support in carrying out particular policies

2 
 2. The author speaks of morality primarily in terms of

(A) traditional notions of good and evil
(B) principles of Roman law
(C) the political rights described in the United States Constitution
(D) the everyday workings of the business community in the United States
(E) the responsibilities inherent in human relationships

nityakaul02 · Answer

ANSWER NO.1 
Q1 1 It can be inferred that a political favor “in the truest sense” (highlighted text) is one that
ANSWER: IN THIS LINE , "A candidate for the presidency who forms an amicitial with a governor or a mayor enters an alliance in the strictest political meaning: a president does not buy a mayor, any more than a mayor buys a president, with cash payments.

The political price that is paid is seen in terms not only of the immediate benefits that it will bring, such as the winning of an election, but of the opportunity that it provides to continue, after the election, the pursuit of political objectives that are beyond mere ambition.".
ANSWER NO.2 
Q 2 The author speaks of morality primarily in terms of
ANSWER IN THE LAST LINE ,"Ultimately, there can be no morality in politics—and no possibility of it—if those who hold the highest positions have no sense of amicitial and of its meaning in the process of politics.".

THANKYOU,

NITYA KAUL

Harsh9676 · Answer

Hey  SajjadAhmad ,  GMATNinja

Can some one explain the reasoning to Choice E in Q2.

Thanks in advance

bM22 · Answer

Hi  Harsh9676 ,

The last lines of the passage: "Ultimately, there can be no morality in politics—and no possibility of it—if those who hold the highest positions have no sense of amicitial and of its meaning in the process of politics.". imply that no morality can exist if the people who hold the highest positions have no sense of the responsibility of friendship or relationship (mentioned in the passage as; "amicitial, the responsible friendship"), thus making option E, the correct Answer.

Another way to approach the question, much easier one also in this case is elimination method. No other option apart from E, has been discussed w.r.t to morality in the passage. Whole of the passage mostly focuses on the relationships between politicians.

Hope this Helps.
Thanks.

Vanshika04 · Answer

Hi, Please give explanation to question 1(with reasons to eliminate the incorrect options).

Thanks:)

bM22 · Answer

Hi  Vanshika04 ,

1) It can be inferred that a political favor “in the truest sense” (highlighted text) is one that

A) involves both private and public commercial interests
B) demands benefits for a particular constituency as well as for the politician who represents it
C) provides reciprocal payments in both financial and political support
D) involves only candidates for high federal positions
 E) represents an exchange of confidence and mutual support in carrying out particular policies

Explanation: "Favors are still involved in amicitial, but they are political in the truest sense." These lines imply that amicitial, the responsible friendship is the friendship in the truest political sense. The friendship not only involves political or immediate benefits, but the opportunity that it provides the pursuit of political objectives after the election, implying that it represent confidence and mutual support in carrying out policies.
Option A is incorrect, because it not related to what's asked in the passage w.r.t the amicitial friendship in concern.
Option B is incorrect, as the friendship doesn't demand it, instead the benefits are the result of this friendship.
Option C is incorrect, the friendship doesn't actually provide reciprocal payments, it simply represents the strictest political meaning, where no more than what is given as a favor is returned ,
Option D is incorrect, as its irrelevant w.r.t to what's asked.

Hope This Helps.
Thanks.

sssanskaar · Answer

For Q#1,

1) It can be inferred that a political favor “in the truest sense” (highlighted text) is one that

A) involves both private and public commercial interests
B) demands benefits for a particular constituency as well as for the politician who represents it
C) provides reciprocal payments in both financial and political support
D) involves only candidates for high federal positions
E) represents an exchange of confidence and mutual support in carrying out particular policies

Experts, can you please help me understand why option C is incorrect here?

bM22 · Answer

Hi  sssanskaar ,

In Question 1, we are looking for an option that reflects the meaning of  political favor “in the truest sense” . For this we also need to consider the lines: "The political price that is paid is seen in terms not only of the immediate benefits that it will bring, such as the winning of an election, but of the opportunity that it provides to continue, after the election, the pursuit of political objectives that are beyond mere ambition."

If you consider the lines: "A candidate for the presidency who forms an amicitial with a governor or a mayor enters an alliance in the strictest political meaning: a president does not buy a mayor, any more than a mayor buys a president,  with cash payments. ", you will notice that option C can only be partly inferred, implying that its incorrect. Exact favor is returned in terms of cash payments, but these political favors are not just about the money. Thus E is a better answer.

Hope This Helps.
Thanks.

Sidharth003 · Answer

Hey  AjiteshArun   Sajjad1994   GMATNinja  was a little stuck with Q2. Here is my understanding of the question. The question speaks about the context of morality:
I inferred that the context is provided by the "client patron relationship" as is clear from the below mentioned lines:
"One may wish that the client-patron relationship did not operate in Congress, but the existence of the relationship must be acknowledged if one is to understand the basic issues of morality in politics"

So I think that a reference to the business community is more appropriate i.e Choice D. Not able to make sens of OA E. Can you please help me establish the link?

Would be a big help. Feeling lost. Thanks:)

GMATNinja · Answer

Let's look at some key points from the passage:

The author states that client-patron relationships "must be acknowledged if one is to understand the basic issues of  morality  in politics."   They describe the client-patron relationship as one where politicians perform favors for other politicians in exchange for reciprocal favors.  They conclude that without  amicitial , "there can be no  morality  in politics."  They define amicitial as "the  responsible friendship  that was a sacred agreement for the Roman politician..."

Note that the author discusses morality in the context of the RELATIONSHIPS between politicians. While client-patron relationships are common in the US congress, the author tells us that these relationships must be "responsible friendships" (i.e. they must follow the principle of amicitial) if they are to be moral. So, since the discussion of morality is directly connected to ideas of  responsibility  and  relationships , (E) is the best option.

The main problem with answer choice (D) is that it talks about the workings of the "business community," but the passage is concerned primarily with relationships among  politicians  (i.e. senators and representatives in the US Congress).

I hope that helps!

robpark · Answer

This an Official Passage in GMAT Official Pratice set 2

KittyDoodles · Answer

Hi Experts,

Please advise how can option E be inferred from the passage in QS1

Thanks
Kitty

Sajjad1994 · Answer

The passage discusses the nature of relationships in United States politics, specifically focusing on the dynamic between politicians and the concept of  "client and patron."  It also introduces the idea of  "amicitial,"  which is described as a responsible friendship and a sacred agreement among politicians. The passage then contrasts these two types of relationships – client-patron and amicitial – and emphasizes the importance of the latter for a more ethical and effective political system.

In the context of this passage, a political favor  "in the truest sense"  refers to a type of exchange that aligns with the principles of amicitial, the responsible friendship among politicians.

A political favor  "in the truest sense"  refers to an exchange of confidence, mutual support, and responsible friendship among politicians. It contrasts with the transactional nature of the client-patron relationship and aligns with the concept of amicitial – an alliance based on shared political objectives and ethical collaboration.

Answer: E

Adarsh_24 · Answer

1. Doesn’t C also include E

C) provides reciprocal payments in both financial and political support.
E) represents an exchange of confidence and mutual support in carrying out particular policies

Doesn’t reciprocal payment in political support include mutual support in policies? I felt C is E plus financial. Which was mentioned immediately after the sentence.

GMATNinja · Answer

Question 1 
 
The author specifically EXCLUDES financial support by saying that a political alliance does NOT involve cash payouts:

That's a good enough reason to eliminate (C). But even "reciprocal payments in political support" isn't quite right because that implies the kind of self-serving favors that go against the principle of amicitial.

Here's how the author describes favors involved in amicitial:

If two politicians form an amicitial with one another, then they are agreeing to support each other in pursuit of political objections. Political objections are achieved through political policies, so (E) is a nice fit.

AAkashdeepBansal · Answer

Why not B? It talks about the roman law only - amicitial!

guddo · Answer

2. The author speaks of morality primarily in terms of

The passage says politics inevitably involves relationships in which favors are exchanged. But the author says morality requires something better than a simple client-patron exchange:  amicitial , or responsible friendship. So morality is mainly about the  responsibilities that come with political relationships .

(A) traditional notions of good and evil

This is too broad. The author does not discuss morality as abstract good versus evil.

(B) principles of Roman law

This is incorrect. The author mentions a Roman political idea, but not Roman law.

(C) the political rights described in the United States Constitution

This is not discussed. The passage is about political relationships, not constitutional rights.

(D) the everyday workings of the business community in the United States

This is not relevant. The passage discusses politics, not business.

(E) the responsibilities inherent in human relationships

This is correct. The author’s idea of political morality is based on responsible relationships, especially the relationship described as amicitial.

Answer: (E)

egmat · Answer

Hi AAkashdeepBansal,

I can see exactly what pulled you toward (B): the passage does lean on  amicitia , and it tells you this was a Roman idea. So "principles of Roman law" feels like a natural match. But look closely at  what kind  of Roman idea amicitia actually is.

The passage defines it in one phrase:  "the responsible friendship that was a sacred agreement for the Roman politician."  That's a  relationship  - a friendship carrying mutual obligation. It is never described as a law, a legal code, or a rule enforced by courts. The word "Roman" is describing where the  idea of friendship  comes from, not telling you the author is discussing law.

Now trace how morality is framed. The closing line says there can be no morality in politics "if those who hold the highest positions have no sense of  amicitia ." Since amicitia = responsible friendship, morality here grows out of the  duties people owe each other in a relationship  - which is precisely what (E) says:  the responsibilities inherent in human relationships.

So (B) fails on one word:  law . The passage gives you a Roman  relationship , not Roman  law .

A quick test to lock this in

Read this everyday line -

"Loyalty was a sacred duty among medieval knights."

Is that sentence about  medieval law , or about a  relationship/obligation  that happened to belong to medieval knights? You'd instantly say it's about the obligation, not the legal system - even though "medieval" is right there. Read the amicitia line the same way: it's about the  bond and its responsibilities , and "Roman" is just where that bond was honored.

That's why (E) fits and (B) doesn't.

Answer: E

The fundamental relationship in United States politics at the state

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 Reading Comprehension (RC) Questions

The fundamental relationship in United States politics at the state

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