Traditionally, candidates for elected offices have

Question

Traditionally, candidates for elected offices have concentrated their efforts on the early stages of the campaign during which, most people believed, the voters' perceptions of candidates were formed. It is now becoming clear, however, that elections can be decided in the few days preceding election day; public opinion polls taken during recent elections provide evidence of several such races. In those cases, the losing candidates would have been well advised to have forgone early spending and instead saved funds for television advertisements late in their campaign.

The conclusion above assumes that which of the following is true?

(A) No candidate for elected office can mount a successful campaign without allocating a large portion of campaign funds to television advertising.
(B) The losing candidates described would have won their respective campaigns had they not spent as heavily in the early stages of those campaigns.
(C) The winning candidates described accrued more funds throughout their campaigns than did the losing candidates.
(D) Candidates who spend a large amount of their campaign funds on television advertising are more successful than those who spend the same amount on print advertising.
(E) The losing candidates described would not have eliminated their chances of winning by spending less in the early stages of their campaigns.

qhoc0010 · Answer

OA is (E)

I don't understand the last line of the stems. Does it mean the person who lost because that person spent less in the early and more in the later?

ronr34 · Answer

I got B, not E.
Can anyone weigh in?

RudeyboyZ · Answer

A. No. The argument says nothing about this.

B. No. No distinction is made between generations of politicians.

C. No. We can only infer that these opinions may change over time.

D. Yes. If elections can be won at the last minute, then polls aren't necessarily accurate.

E. No. The argument is about the timing of campaign spending, not about "defining the issues."

I still don't get the meaning of the argument! What does this argument mean?

akashbolster · Answer

Can anyone explain why Option B is wrong here??

saicharan1191 · Answer

Clear option E. The argument says that it would have been a good thing to suggest losing candidates, as per opinion polls, to forego their spending to a later stage. This implies that the argument still believes that there is a winning chance for these candidates. Option E clears that by saying that winning chances have not been eliminated.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using GMAT Club Forum mobile app

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using  GMAT Club Forum mobile app

akashbolster · Answer

saicharan1191 : could you please explain me why option B is wrong?

saicharan1191 · Answer

Akash,

Option B says that candidate would have won if he had not spent much initially. It is not logical to support this statement. The argument just says that if public polls are followed, we can anticipate who is going to win and hence advice the losing candidate to not spend much initially but do at last stages. This does not mean that candidate will win if he does not spend initially. So option B is wrong. So in suggesting the candidate to forego spending to a later stage, argument is still based on the assumption that there is a chance for candidate to win without initial spending. This is what option E says.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using  GMAT Club Forum mobile app

Traditionally, candidates for elected offices have

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