Political Analyst: Because our city is a border city, unauthorized imm

Question

Political Analyst: Because our city is a border city, illegal immigration is an important issue in the current race for mayor. Of the two candidates for mayor, one supports a plan that would attempt to deport the city’s 9,000 illegal immigrants and the other does not. Surveys consistently show that about 60% of the city’s residents are opposed to the plan, while about 35% are in support of the plan. Therefore, the candidate who does not support the plan will win the election for mayor.

All of the following statements weaken the analyst’s argument, EXCEPT:

(A) In the city at issue, most voters make their voting decisions based on the candidates’ positions on abortion.

(B) Of the 35% of residents who support the plan, some are willing to consider alternate plans for addressing illegal immigration.

(C) Many of the residents who oppose the plan are not registered voters.

(D) The candidate who supports the plan is the incumbent mayor, and has been elected to four consecutive terms despite taking controversial positions on many important issues.

(E) Just under 30% of the city’s residents are illegal immigrants who cannot vote.

Vercules · Accepted Answer

(A) If voters make their decision based on abortion then a candidate's position on the illegal immigration proposal will have no effect on his/her candidacy, thus weakening the conclusion.

(C) If many of the residents who oppose the plan are not registered voters then it will put the group which opposes the plan in minority. So, the candidate so opposes the plan may not necessarily win the election. This choice also weakens the conclusion.

(D) This choice directly attacks the assumption that the argument makes - People's opinions decide which candidate will win the election. If a candidate is re-ellected multiple times in spite of his support for controversial issues, then people's opinions do not matter in election.

(E) If around 30% of the residents are illegal immigrants then the percentage of people who oppose the plan would drop to 30%. So the candidate who opposes the plan may not necessarily win the election. 
Now the only choice that is left is (b), the answer

Reason why B is correct. If 35% people who support the plan are considering alternate ways to address the immigration, then these people may not vote for the candidate who supports the plan and may vote the candidate who opposes the plan. This choice strengthens the conclusion.

Hope that helps,

Vercules,

Posted from my mobile device

BarneyStinson · Answer

This is a very straight forward question. 
Candidate M1 proposed a plan to deport illegal immigrants. 35% of the population support it. Candidate M2 is silent about the issue, 60% of the population seem to support him. Therefore, M2 will win is the conclusion. We have to find the option that does not weaken the author's argument, in other words, strengthens it, affirms that M2 will win.

A - Abortion is out of scope.
B - If out of 35% some are willing to consider alternate plans, they may shift to M2 and M2 will win. 
C - 60% group mostly contains unregistered voters. So they cannot vote and less chances of M2 winning. 
D - M1 is incumbent (currently in office) but statement has nothing to do.
E - 30% are illegal immigrants who cannot vote, this may be divided between the two groups that take different stances as noticed, this statement has nothing to do with the argument at hand.

Direct win is B.

Bunuel · Answer

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

The analyst argues that the mayoral candidate who opposes the deportation plan will win the governor’s race because 60% of city residents also oppose the plan. The analyst assumes that a majority of residents will vote for this candidate based on his position on unauthorized immigration. Any statement that calls this assumption into question will weaken the argument. You are looking for the one statement that does NOT call this assumption into question.

(A) This statement calls into question the assumption that voters will cast their ballots based on the unauthorized immigration issue. Therefore, this statement weakens the analyst's argument.

(B) CORRECT . This does not weaken the argument. In fact, if some of those who support the plan are willing to reconsider, they may ultimately oppose the original plan and decide to vote for the candidate who is also in opposition. If anything, this would help justify the analyst's claim that the candidate who opposes the plan will win the election.

(C) This statement calls into question the assumption that a majority of residents will vote for the candidate who opposes the plan. If many of these residents are not registered voters, they will not be able to vote, regardless of their position on the immigration issue. This weakens the argument.

(D) This calls into question the assumption that the residents will vote based on the unauthorized immigration issue. This statement shows that voters have a history of voting for the incumbent despite his controversial position on important issues. It is possible that the voters will again vote for the incumbent, even if he has taken an unpopular position on the unauthorized immigration issue. This weakens the argument.

(E) If just under 30% of the residents are unauthorized immigrants, it is likely that many of the 60% in opposition to the plan are actually unauthorized immigrants themselves. If these individuals can’t vote, it is less likely that the candidate who opposes the plan will win.

bhanushalinikhil · Answer

My choice is D. The conclusion is not drawn on the basis of candidate's performance but on the illegal immigrant issue at hand hence does not effect analyst's argument. Also, all other options are in some way or the other related to premise.

Wayxi · Answer

B here as well.

Took me a while to figure it out but heres my explanation:

B says the 35% people who support the plan aren't really sure so they might switch to the other candidate. This supports the analyst argument that the person who oppose the plan will win the election.

Narenn · Answer

It's B.
 Analysis of Argument :-  illegal immigration is an important issue. One candidate plans to deport illegal immigrants whereas other does not. 60% of residents opposed the plan whereas 35% supported it. So the conclusion is, the candidate who oppose the plan will win the election because he enjoys support of 60% residents. There are several things which must have assumed while drawing the conclusion and if did not they will weaken the conclusion. Any choice that contain reasoning reverse of them will be incorrect here 1) all or substantial residents do posses the voting right. 2) all or substantial residents that oppose the plan would actually vote on election day. 3) all or substantial residents that oppose the plan would cast their votes to the candidate who also oppose this plan.

A) Incorrect. This clearly weakens the argument by saying voters do not vote on the basis of candidates' position on illegal migration

B) This choice stays neutral and is correct answer.

C) Incorrect. If substatial voters who oppose the plan have no voting rights then it is difficult for that candidate to win. Weakens the argument.

D) Incorrect. This says there are other factors than illegal immigration on which voters decides whom to vote. Otherwise the candidate who supports the plan would have not been elected again and again

E) This choice seems not to weakens the argument at first(so i kept it as a contender initially) but if look closely it reveals that the residents are devided in three sections 60%(opposers), 35%(supporters), and 5%(neutral). Now the percentage of illegal immigrants is possibily 28% or 29% (just under 30%)and those should must be in 60% section. if those 28% have no voting rights then the candidate who oppose the plan would left with only 32% supporters who can actually vote and can not win the election with that. This weakens the argument. Incorrect.

IanStewart · Answer

The part I've highlighted in red is not quite right, mathematically. Say you have 100 people:

--> 60 oppose the plan 
--> 35 support the plan
--> 5 are neutral

but we know 30 of these people are illegal immigrants and cannot vote. Assuming they all oppose the plan, when we remove those 30 people from the opposition, we have:

--> 30 oppose the plan
--> 35 support the plan
--> 5 are neutral

The total number of people is now much less than 100. So we don't have 30% opposition; we have 30/70 = 43% opposition. And if you group the opposition with those who are neutral, then you find that 50% of all people are either in opposition or are neutral (and more than 50% are if you take into account that the number of illegal immigrants is actually 'just under 30%').

So while I agree that E weakens the analyst's argument, it would be a mistake to conclude from E that a majority of actual voters will support the plan; that's still untrue even using E.

AryamaDuttaSaikia · Answer

We have to look for an answer choice which says that the candidate who does not support the plan will win the election. "A" states that the voter's decision primarily rests on this plan. "C" is irrelevant because the voters are not even registered; so their decision becomes invalid. "D" clearly states that the plan is being supported. Again "E" is irrelevant because it talks about people who are not in a position to vote. Hence "B" is the answer.

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.

Political Analyst: Because our city is a border city, unauthorized imm

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

Political Analyst: Because our city is a border city, unauthorized imm

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