Voters commonly condemn politicians for being insincere, but politicia

Question

Voters commonly condemn politicians for being insincere, but politicians often must disguise their true feelings when they make public statements. If they expressed their honest views - about, say, their party's policies - then achieving politically necessary compromises would be much more difficult. Clearly, the very insincerity that people decry shows that our government is functioning well.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines this reasoning?
 
(A) Achieving political compromises is not all that is necessary for the proper functioning of a government.
 
(B) Some political compromises are not in the best long-term interest of the government.
 
(C) Voters often judge politicians by criteria other than the sincerity with which they express their views.
 
(D) A political party's policies could turn out to be detrimental to the functioning of a government.
 
(E) Some of the public statements made by politicians about their party's policies could in fact be sincere.

Insincere Politicians

Step 1: Identify the Question

The word undermines indicates that this is a  Weaken the Argument  question.

Step 2: Deconstruct the Argument

V: P insincere

P must hide feelings

Else diff to compromise

Ó Insincere à gov functioning well

Step 3: Pause and State the Goal

On Weaken questions, the correct answer makes the conclusion less likely to be valid. Often on Weaken questions, you will want to attack gaps in the logic of the argument. Do you see any gaps between the premises and conclusion?

Step 4: Work from Wrong to Right

(A) CORRECT . The premise says that disguising true feelings is needed for compromises, while the conclusion says that insincerity shows that the government is functioning well. These are not the same thing. If things other than compromises are also necessary in order for a government to function well, then the ability to achieve compromises, by itself, does not mean that the government is functioning well overall.

(B) The argument states that political compromises are necessary. For this to be the case, not all political compromises need be in the government’s best long-term interest. Moreover, the relationship between a government functioning well and long-term interests is not clear; these two ideas are not necessarily the same thing.

(C) The argument states that insincerity is a criterion voters consider. The fact that voters consider other factors as well does not influence the conclusion drawn about insincerity.

(D) The conclusion relates to whether compromises promote the functioning of the government. Whether some policies may not help in this functioning does not directly relate to the conclusion.

(E) The fact that some statements may be sincere does not diminish the premise that politicians may still be insincere in certain instances.

Argument Evaluation

Situation  
Politicians must often make insincere public statements because expressing their true feelings would make it harder for them to achieve politically necessary compromises.

Reasoning  
 What would suggest that the argument's premises do not establish that politicians' insincerity shows our government is functioning well?  The implicit reasoning is that insincerity helps politicians achieve politically necessary compromises, and these compromises help our government to function well, so insincerity must show that our government is functioning well. Evidence that these necessary compromises do not ensure that our government functions well would undermine the argument's reasoning, as would evidence that politicians' insincerity has other substantial effects that hinder the government's functioning.

(A) Correct . If governments may function poorly even when insincerity allows necessary political compromises to be made, then the argument's premises do not establish that politicians' insincerity shows our government is functioning well.

(B) The argument does not require that all political compromises help government to function well, only that politically necessary compromises do.

(C) Even if voters often judge politicians by criteria other than their sincerity, they may also often decry politicians' insincerity, not realizing or caring that such insincerity helps the government function well.

(D) Even if a political party's policies impair the government's functioning, politically necessary compromises by politicians in that party could improve the government's functioning.

(E) Even if politicians sometimes speak sincerely about their party's policies, their general willingness to be insincere as needed to achieve politically necessary compromises could be a sign that the government is functioning well.

ChiranjeevSingh · Accepted Answer

After going through all the posts on this thread, I can see that while many of us have gotten the answer right, hardly anyone of us has gotten it right for the right reasons.

The crux of the argument is this: Since achieving politically necessary compromises would be much more difficult with honest views than with insincerity, the insincerity of the politicians shows that our govt is functioning well.

The reason given on this thread for accepting option A is that the option shows that achieving political compromises does not help in the proper functioning of a government. Or it delinks political compromises from the functioning of the government.

Neither of these reasons is correct.

If I tell you that achieving 760 on GMAT is not all that is necessary for getting admission in Harvard (which, as you know is true since there are many other requirements), does it mean that 760 on GMAT doesn't help in getting admission in Harvard? Or does it mean that 760 on GMAT is not linked to admission to Harvard?

The answer to both the questions is No. Right?

Just that one thing is not the "only" necessary requirement doesn't mean that it is not even one of the requirements. Right?

Similarly, option A doesn't mean achieving political compromises is not good for the functioning of a government.

Rather, if I change the conclusion to "the very insincerity that people decry is good for the functioning of the government", option A will become incorrect, for the abovementioned reasons.

The reason option A is correct is that the conclusion says that the insincerity "shows" that the government is functioning well.

It's like saying "your 760 on GMAT shows that you have gotten into Harvard".

Now, if someone tells me that 760 on GMAT is not the only requirement for Harvard, my above statement will be weakened.

Right?

Similarly, since option A says that achieving political compromises is not the only requirement for the proper functioning of the government, it means that even if we achieve political compromises, other requirements may not be met, and thus, the government may still not be functioning well. Therefore, just by knowing that we have probably achieved political compromises, we cannot say that the government is functioning well.

Does it make sense?

Option B is wrong because it says "some" political compromises are not in the best long-term interest of the government. One major reason for rejecting option B is that "some" means "at least one". So, essentially option B says that at least one political compromise is not in the.... Do we really need all political compromises to be in the "best long-term interests" of the government?

No. Right?

Secondly, it talks about "political compromises" in general, not specifically "necessary political compromises", as talked about in the argument. It could be that some political compromises are not good, but probably none of them is necessary. Probably, all necessary compromises are actually good for the government. Right?

Therefore, option B doesn't weaken the argument.

Option D says "A political party's policies could turn out to be detrimental to the functioning of a government". This option uses "could", which means, as in option B, that some policies could be detrimental to the functioning of a government. Now, even if some of the policies are detrimental to the functioning of the government, does it mean that politicians should express honestly?

No. Because the reasoning of the argument stands as is. If they express honestly, achieving politically "necessary" compromises would be much more difficult.

Therefore, even if option D is true, the reasoning of the argument stands as is.

Thus, option D doesn't weaken the argument and is incorrect.

KarishmaB · Answer

Seems the question is giving trouble to many so here are my views on it.

Premises:  
Voters commonly condemn politicians for being  insincere , 
Politicians often must disguise their true feelings when they make public statements. 
If they expressed their honest views—about, say, their party's policies—then achieving  politically necessary compromises  would be much more difficult.

Conclusion:   Clearly, the very  insincerity  that people decry shows that our  government is functioning well .

The argument links 'insincerity' to 'politically necessary compromises' to 'government is functioning well'. We need to undermine this reasoning.

(A) Achieving political compromises is not all that is necessary for the proper functioning of a government.

Correct. This says that "political compromises" does not lead to "proper functioning". There are other things required too. So we cannot conclude that the govt is functioning well only because it achieves political compromises.

(B) Some political compromises are not in the best long-term interest of the government.

"Long term interest of the govt" is not relevant to our argument.

(C) Voters often judge politicians by criteria other than the sincerity with which they express their views.

How voters judge politicians is irrelevant.

(D) A political party's policies could turn out to be detrimental to the functioning of a government.

Note that what the political party's policies are and how they impact the functioning of the govt is irrelevant to us. We are saying that "political compromises" lead to a well functioning govt. The argument mentions "political policies" only as an example - if politicians expressed their honest views about say political policies, political compromise may not be achieved. Actually the argument links "honesty of politicians" to "political compromise" to "functioning of a government" and that is what we need to worry about.

(E) Some of the public statements made by politicians about their party's policies could in fact be sincere.

This just says that politicians are not "always dishonest".

Answer (A)

CrackverbalGMAT · Answer

The right answer here should be  A . Since this is a "weaken the conclusion" question, we must first identify exactly what that conclusion within the argument is. In this case it is that  'insincerity helps the government to function well' . Since we're trying to weaken this conclusion, we want something which, if true, suggests that insincerity does NOT actually help.

Generally, an assumption that weakens the conclusion will do so by challenging the information given, or by providing new information, and we wanna be on the lookout for both. The info that we have is that insincerity helps achieve political compromises, hence it is a good thing. So it is possible that the right answer attacks this point.

A  - If achieving political compromises is not important, then it defeats the very point that insincerity is helpful because the thing it helps does not actually make the government function properly.  CORRECT

B  - Even if *some* compromises are not in the best long term interest, it still suggests that achieving them helps the govt to function.  OUT

C  - It does not matter whether voters look for sincerity or not, because the conclusion is about whether it helps the government to function or not.  OUT

D  - Maybe a political party's decisions end up being bad for the govt, but it does not explain how sincerity or lack of sincerity might affect this, so it is unrelated to the conclusion.  OUT

E  - If some statements are actually sincere, this becomes even more irrelevant, because we wanna know what the impact of sincerity is. This is akin to weakening the premise, and that is not something that you should ever look to do in a CR question.  OUT

- Matoo

manishkhare · Answer

Conclusion: Clearly, the very insincerity that people decry shows that our government is functioning well. 
The right answer will point out how political compromise are not good for governance. Option A and B both talk about the impact of political compromise on government .
However B says :"B. Some political compromises are not in the best long-term interest of the government."It implies that there are political compromises which are in the best interest of the government.This rules out B .

Option A is the right answer.

debaratidg · Answer

I am currently using the MGMAT CR guide, and am working only on improving strengthen, weaken and assumption questions. "training your ear" suggested by  bb  and knowing "characteristics of answers" by Stacey K from Manhattan are something I am setting out to do. Although I am finding Kaplan's some questions a little off, but their other questions seems okay.

Anyways, Premises: Candidates are often insincere because they don't want to voice their honest opinions as this may hamper any political collaborations with those parties in the future.

Conclusion: this insincerity shows that our govt is working fine.

A. Achieving political compromises is not all that is necessary for the proper functioning of a government.  If achieving political collaborations isnt important, the this insincerity must be to hide something more crucial. Hence conclusion is weakened as this insincerity is not to hide any fallacies of other parties in fear of hampering future collaborations.

Hence Ans: A

koreye · Answer

TL: "Not being honest helps achieve politically necessary compromises, hence dishonesty in statements is a sign that Govt is functioning well"

The main link is "politically necessary compromises" and "Govt functioning well"
 
A. "politically necessary compromises are not necessary for functioning of Govt" delinking politically necessary compromises from Functioning of govt, hence weakens the argument.

B. is out because it speaks of some compromises, link is weak. Maybe others or most compromises are better in the long term

C. out of scope and has nothing to do with the conclusion or main thrust of the argument

D. does not mention politically necessary compromises or dishonesty of statements...out of scope

E. some statements could be sincere. So what...has nothing to do with the link identified above between compromises and govt funcitoning well.

A is the right answer

mvictor · Answer

we need to weaken the conclusion.
the conclusion is - insincerity of politicians - gvt functions well.
the conclusion is supported by the premise that: politicians lie because by doing so, they achieve politically necessary compromises.

the assumption here is that the compromises are actually helping the gvt function well.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines this reasoning?

A. Achieving political compromises is not all that is necessary for the proper functioning of a government.
this one negates the assumption. this is a clear weakener, as the conclusion no longer stands true.

B. Some political compromises are not in the best long-term interest of the government.
well, we are not interested in long term interests. we need to show that being insincere does not help gvt function well.

C. Voters often judge politicians by criteria other than the sincerity with which they express their views.
irrelevant to the conclusion.

D. A political party's policies could turn out to be detrimental to the functioning of a government.
well, it might be true, but doesn't affect the conclusion at all.

E. Some of the public statements made by politicians about their party's policies could in fact be sincere.
irrelevant.

vlakhanpal14 · Answer

how can option d can be eliminated?
I was sure that answer was A but at the same time couldn't rule out option D

Abhishek009 · Answer

Capture.PNG We are talking about the decisions of the politicians and their compromises , from where does Government come in ? Political Parties can play 2 roles - 1. Form the Government 2. Form the Opposition to the various houses of the Government Political Party may be Independent of the Government and as such there is a flaw (Gap) in the reasoning. Option (A) very elegantly touches on this point perfectly, whereas in point (D) we have an element of doubt , it can be true... Hence IMHO (A) is the best answer for this question...

deependra1234 · Answer

mikemcgarry I really don't get how is d out of scope... If the politician is not sincere about party policies.. bad policies may be implemented clearly not helping in functioning of government.. why is it so out of scope..?? a I understand hits the pont but so does d...

Posted from my mobile device

Posted from my mobile device

mikemcgarry · Answer

Dear deependra1234 , I'm happy to respond.

Here's the prompt argument: Voters commonly condemn politicians for being insincere, but politicians often must disguise their true feelings when they make public statements. If they expressed their honest views--about, say, their party's policies--then achieving politically necessary compromises would be much more difficult. Clearly, the very insincerity that people decry shows that our government is functioning well. Think about this logic carefully. The speaker is saying that the politician must be insincere and support the party platform, not because this party policies should be implemented as stated by the party, but instead, because everyone supporting the party will make it easier for the party to compromise, presumably with other parties. (In the real world, I profoundly disagree with this logic, but here, this is evidence, so we have to stick with it.) Now, look at (D): A political party's policies could turn out to be detrimental to the functioning of a government . This is out-of-scope precisely because what would happen if the single party's positions were implement is entirely irrelevant to the scenario in the prompt. We know that all the politicians of the party who verbally support the party policy, regardless of whether they really believe it, will have to sit down to compromise with the other party (or other parties), and what will be implemented is this compromise. It's those compromises that (according to the argument) are good for the government. This is precisely what (A) says. Does all this make sense? Mike

valepm · Answer

I completely agree. However, I saw it in a different light. We have to weaken the argument (this does not mean the conclusion only, some people only want to weaken the conclusion but it extremely important to understand how the author came to that conclusion (the premise) in order to weaken it).

The conclusion is simple: Insincerity shows that the government is functioning well. 
Why? (Premise). Because politicians are insincere to achieve political compromises.

In short words the author's argument is that Politicians are insincere to achieve compromise, and achieving compromise means government functioning well. Basically stating that all that is needed to make a government function well is to achieve compromise. (The reason why political lie)

How do we weaken the argument (conclusion + supporting premise) = We need to show the author that a government does not function well only by achieving compromises. And answer A does just that.

Manukaran · Answer

Hello  chiranjeev , we had to look for option that mentions that political compromises is "not" good for the functioning of a government.

As you mentioned, option A  doesn't  mean achieving political compromises is not good for the functioning of a government.

So, why we are choosing A?

ChiranjeevSingh · Answer

No. We are not 'necessarily' looking for an option that says achieving political compromises is not good for the functioning of the government. However, if an option says so, it will also be correct. However, we don't 'need' an option to say that.

For example: Ram scored very well on GMAT. Ram's GMAT score shows that he is intelligent.

Now, the above argument can be definitely weakened by saying that a good GMAT score is a reflection of poor intelligence. However, we don't need an option to say that to weaken the argument. In other words, there are other ways to weaken the argument.

A statement that a GMAT score is not enough to prove one's intelligence also weakens the argument.

Makes sense?

- CJ

shuvodip04 · Answer

What additional information will make me less likely to believe in the conclusion that:-

Since people are decrying the insincerity ,our government must be functioning well.

Given :- 1) Politicians must disguise their true feelings when they make any political statement.
 2) Because if they expressed true feelings making political compromises will be more difficult.

Thinking process : The author states that the government is functioning well because people are decrying the insincerity. So the government must be disguising their true feelings.
Here the author assumes that since the government is functioning well , it is making political compromises.

Now a weakener will be in the lines that negates this assumption i.e political compromises is not necessary for proper functioning of the government.

Only option A) is in the line with our weakener.

sahilbhatia21 · Answer

valepm

Argument:

Insincerity of Politicians shows -------> Govt Functioning well
 
 Pre-Thinking : A new Piece of info that delinks the Insincerity to the functioning of the govt (Weakener)

POE:

A) Acc to the author Insincerity leads to achieving necessary political compromises and leads Govt. to function well, If 'Politically necessary compromises' are not at all necessary then it means Gvt can function well without this insincerity thereby weakening the argument -  Correct 
B)  Some  may be Not but at the same time Others may be in the best Interest, indicating that Politically compromises are Necessary , thereby strengthening the argument 
Also, Interests is not the same as functioning .
C)  Out of scope  , this has no brearing on the functioning of the government 
D )This is a strengthener   as the author mentions if honest about party policies then political compromises are tough ,thereby strengthening the argument that Honesty is detremental to functiong and that insincerity shows govt. functioning well
E)  'Some'  is not representative therefore out of scope. and doesn't affect the overall trend

sahilbhatia21 · Answer

Argument:

Insincerity of Politicians shows -------> Govt Functioning well
 
 Pre-Thinking : A new Piece of info that delinks the Insincerity to the functioning of the govt (Weakener)

POE:

A) Acc to the author Insincerity leads to achieving necessary political compromises and leads Govt. to function well, If 'Politically necessary compromises' are not at all necessary then it means Gvt can function well without this insincerity thereby weakening the argument -  Correct 
B)  Some  may be Not but at the same time Others may be in the best Interest, indicating that Politically compromises are Necessary , thereby strengthening the argument 
Also, Interests is not the same as functioning .
C)  Out of scope  , this has no brearing on the functioning of the government 
D )This is a strengthener   as the author mentions if honest about party policies then political compromises are tough ,thereby strengthening the argument that Honesty is detremental to functiong and that insincerity shows govt. functioning well
E)  'Some'  is not representative therefore out of scope. and doesn't affect the overall trend

warrior1991 · Answer

GMATNinja   VeritasKarishma   MentorTutoring   generis

Am not able to eliminate option D. Please help

AndrewN · Answer

Hello,  warrior1991 . In my mind, option (D) can easily be eliminated with a careful reading of the conclusion and a quick comparison.

Since when are insincerity and policies the same thing? The former has to do with intent, while the latter has more to do with a credo. Furthermore, the could-be-true condition of (D) is a trap. If something   could  turn out to be detrimental , then it also could not. The verb tense shows uncertainty. In short, choice (D) does nothing to weaken the argument, since it broaches a separate concern and hinges upon a not-necessarily-true outcome. If it helps, you could reframe the conclusion using the information from the passage:

the very insincerity that people decry, insincerity  that politicians must use to achieve politically necessary compromises , shows that our government is functioning well

I hope you will agree that the content of political policies has nothing to do with the above argument. If you have further questions, though, feel free to ask. Thank you for thinking to tag me.

- Andrew

Voters commonly condemn politicians for being insincere, but politicia

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

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Voters commonly condemn politicians for being insincere, but politicia

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