Total contributions by individuals to political parties were

Question

Total contributions by individuals to political parties were up 25 percent in this most recent presidential election over those of four years earlier. Hence, 

it is obvious that people are no longer as apathetic as they were, but are taking a greater interest in politics.

Which of the following, if true, would considerably weaken the preceding argument?
(A) The average contribution per individual actually declined during the same four year period.
(B) Per capita income of the population increased by 15 percent during the four years in question.
(C) Public leaders continue to warn citizens against the dangers of political apathy.
(D) Contributions made by large corporations to political parties declined during the four-year period.
(E) Fewer people voted in the most recent presidential election than in the one four years earlier.

sleek04 · Answer

I would go with A.
 Its the reason that would weaken the preceded statement.
 If the average is less, the interest has gone down but not increased. But there could be some others(a few others) whose contribution has gone up and so it might have gone up by 25%.
whats the OA?
sleek

HongHu · Answer

I'd go with E.

If less people voted that might indicate that people are taking less interest in the politics even if total contribution increased.

sleek04 · Answer

Even if some people are interested in politics, they might not particiapte in voting and so at that time, how can you justify E?
 I thought that it was specified about the monetary donations in the first sentence and anything related to that concept could be correct.
any other ideas??

HongHu · Answer

Ok let's do it by POE.

(A) The average contribution per individual actually declined during the same four year period.
This only means more people have contributed, which strengthens the conclusion that people are more interested.

(B) Per capita income of the population increased by 15 percent during the four years in question.
This would be the best answer, in my opinion, if the number is 25 or more. Since it would indicate that the increase in political contribution is only comparable to the increase in people's income. However since 15<25, it still follows people must be more interested than before.

(C) Public leaders continue to warn citizens against the dangers of political apathy.
That says nothing about if people are more interested.

(D) Contributions made by large corporations to political parties declined during the four-year period.
This again strengthens the conclusion. If corporation contribution declined while total contribution increases, that must mean more contribution from people, thus more people interested in politics.

(E) Fewer people voted in the most recent presidential election than in the one four years earlier.
Voting is another important indicator of people's interests in politics. This fact presents an counter argument to the author's argument and thus weaken the conclusion.

mirhaque · Answer

A.

Average contribution declined means only few wealthy fat cats are rolling in dough for their special interest while majority didn't care to dig into their pockets.

What's the OA?

singh · Answer

I will go with (E). as for (A) Total contributions increased by 25% but avg contribution per person has decreased according to (A), which implies that number of people who contributed has increased ...which will actually strengthen the argument above. The choice (E) though itself weak definitly weaken the argument.

qhoc0010 · Answer

OA is (E)
What about (A)? (A) means people actually put in less money, but the total is higher b/c of the incease in population??
(C) is flawed when we talk about the change in population also b/c fewer people voted is due to a decrease in population. What if the percentage of voters is still high?

Folaa3 · Answer

But A doesn't mention anything about population or are we suppose to assume population increased?

chunjuwu · Answer

It seems a little hard to me. 
In the passage, the increase in total contributions made by individuals 
and the decrease in the average contribution mean the number of population must increase. And increase in the population just weaken the argument; that is, the reason is not because of greater interest in politics but because of increase in population. doesn't weaken? 

To me, E is out of scope. The vote rate doesn't necessarily mean people's attitude toward politics, it probably is weather factor which influences the vote rate. 

Could anybody give me some help?

qhoc0010 · Answer

I agree with you on this one.
The premise makes a connection between "contribution" (or $$) and "interest in politics". Now, for a GMAT common sense, in order to weaken the argument, we must break this connection.
(E) says "fewer people voted", which I don't think that it has anything to do with $$. I mean  "What if the population decreases?"

singh · Answer

We need not break the connection. But, if we can negate the assumption then also we can weaken the argument, this is what I believe is happening in (E).

By an increase in total of 25% the author indicates awareness in more people which also means that he assumes that it is because of more people contributing (and not because more contri per person).

Statement (E) just states that no of people Dec. i.e. it negates the assumption .... do I make any sense to anybody ???

chunjuwu · Answer

Hello, Who could tell me why A is wrong? :cry:

chunjuwu · Answer

thanks, I've understand why choice A is wrong. 

The increase in the number of population who made contribution means people are more and more interested in politics. 

So, strengthen the argument.

Total contributions by individuals to political parties were

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