Editorialist: News media rarely cover local politics thoroughly

Question

Editorialist: News media rarely cover local politics thoroughly, and local political business is usually conducted secretively. These factors each tend to isolate local politicians from their electorates. This has the effect of reducing the chance that any particular act of resident participation will elicit a positive official response, which in turn discourages resident participation in local politics.

Which one of the following is most strongly supported by the editorialist’s statements?

(A) Particular acts of resident participation would be likely to elicit a positive response from local politicians if those politicians were less isolated from their electorate.

(B) Local political business should be conducted less secretively because this would avoid discouraging resident participation in local politics.

(C) The most important factor influencing a resident’s decision as to whether to participate in local politics is the chance that the participation will elicit a positive official response.

(D) More-frequent thorough coverage of local politics would reduce at least one source of discouragement from resident participation in local politics.

(E) If resident participation in local politics were not discouraged, this would cause local politicians to be less isolated from their electorate.

Source: LSAT

sidd13 · Accepted Answer

Answer is D

D is correct because, since the stimulus tells us that both local political secrecy and insufficient news coverage contribute to politicians being isolated, which in turn contributes to a decrease in resident participation, reducing either of these original factors (local political secrecy and insufficient news coverage) would, necessarily, reduce at least one sort of discouragement against resident participation that currently exists.

E is incorrect because, though the contrapositive tells us that if resident participation were not discouraged, insufficient news coverage could not be a problem, the causality of this relationship has been lost - it is not true that increased resident participation would then have necessrily caused better news coverage.

GMATNinja · Answer

Let's stay focused on reading the argument carefully before trying to apply any kind of test to it:

This is a lot of information to take in, but the editorialist is basically telling us about a sequence of actions. So let's break up this sequence into individual steps:

News media rarely cover local politics thoroughly. At the same time, local political business is usually conducted secretively. 
  These two factors result in the isolation of local politicians from their electorates. 
  The isolation of local politicians from electorates results in a lower chance that any act of resident participation will elicit a positive official response. 
  When there is a lower chance that any act of resident participation will elicit a positive official response, then residents will be discouraged from participating in local politics.

Now, is choice (E)  supported by  the breakdown above?

Huh? Not discouraging resident participation would  cause  local politicians to be less isolated? This seems backwards.

The editorialist told us that local politicians become isolated from their electorates.  Then, as a result of the isolation,  the chance of a positive response due to resident participation goes down.  Then, as a result of this chance going down , residents are discouraged from participating in local politics.

Choice (E) reads in the opposite direction, which contradicts the entire flow of logic that the argument has set up. So (E) can't be supported by the editorialist's statements. The sequence of events being described just doesn't line up.

That's why we can eliminate (E). I hope this helps!

sobby · Answer

The Argument is basically showing the impact of less New coverage ..Only option D talks about news coverage and its effect in reducing discouragement of resident in participating local politics.

stne · Answer

Are LSAT CR questions actual representative of GMAT CR. 
Seem to be getting most of these wrong.
Here went with A .

hellosanthosh2k2 · Answer

Hi Broall,

I was oscillating between D and E, but ended up on wrong side

I have one question regarding E,

Premise: News media rarely cover local politics thoroughly, and local political business is usually conducted secretively. These factors each tend to isolate local politicians from their electorates. This has the effect of reducing the chance that any particular act of resident participation will elicit a positive official response, which in turn discourages resident participation in local politics.

News Media rare coverage and business conducted secretively -> isolation of local politicians from their electorates -> less chance of positive official response -> discourage residente participation.

Contra Positive: no discourage of resident participation -> more chance of positive official response -> less isolation of local politicians -> news media more coverage.

is n't answer choice E, saying contrapositive?

If resident participation in local politics were not discouraged, this would cause local politicians to be less isolated from their electorate.
 no discourage of resident partipation -> less isolation of local politicians , is n't this correct?

Please help

Thanks

broall · Answer

I think that the logic in this question is: X->Y and Y->Z thus X->Z. Since the question asks the answer choice that the argument  most strongly supports , we come to choice B, which states the conclusion that X->Z. Other choices just conclude Y->Z so aren't good enough.

minbiebs · Answer

Anyone please explain to me why A is wrong?

Masterscorp · Answer

Let's take a look at A: The problematic word is "likely". We know that the low coverage of local news and secretive conduct of local political businesses leads to isolation of local politicians from their electorate. If these problems were remedied the isolation would be reduced and it would become more likely that resident participation would result in positive responses from local politicians. We just know that the likelihood would increase but we don't know by how much. Hence, we can't state that resident participation would likely result in positive responses. This is why answer A is incorrect. Hope that helps

gauravjec · Answer

Editorialist: News media rarely cover local politics thoroughly, and local political business is usually conducted secretively. These factors each tend to isolate local politicians from their electorates. This has the effect of reducing the chance that any particular act of resident participation will elicit a positive official response, which in turn discourages resident participation in local politics.

Which one of the following is most strongly supported by the editorialist’s statements?

(A) Particular acts of resident participation would be likely to elicit a positive response from local politicians if those politicians were less isolated from their electorate.

(Incorrect:-we know isolation results in discouragement. But it does not mean less isolation will result in positive response)

(B) Local political business should be conducted less secretively because this would avoid discouraging resident participation in local politics.

(Incorrect:-cannot infer anything"moral" from the information given)

(C) The most important factor influencing a resident’s decision as to whether to participate in local politics is the chance that the participation will elicit a positive official response.

(Incorrect:-does not have to be the "most important factor". Only need to be an important factor in making the decision)

(D) More-frequent thorough coverage of local politics would reduce at least one source of discouragement from resident participation in local politics.

(Correct:- since the positive response has to be an important factor affecting the decision, thus more frequent coverage will illicit some positive response and hence will reduce discouragement at least a little)

(E) If resident participation in local politics were not discouraged, this would cause local politicians to be less isolated from their electorate.

(incorrect:- cannot be inferred)

facts:- 
1) local politics conducted secretively
2) media does not conduct thorough coverage of local politics

Result:- local politicians isolated from their electorates

Conclusion:- Discourage resident participation in Local Politics
Premise:- local politicians isolated from their electorates. little chance of a positive official response

Under what conditions will the conclusion not hold true:- residents are not discouraged?

"when a positive official response is not an important factor in deciding to participate in the local politics.

Hence, positive response has to be an important decisive factor. It need not be the most important one.

guptakashish02 · Answer

Hi  GMATNinja ,
I have used the same strategy and marked E. I am not able to eliminate E. Could you please help here. Why is E wrong?

dharam44 · Answer

Why B is incorrect ?

GMATNinja

GMATNinja · Answer

In the passage, the editorialist makes an argument about how the world  is , but never discusses how the world  should be.  Maybe he/she thinks that discouraging residents from participation is appalling -- but maybe not. Perhaps he/she is an evil mastermind attempting to take over the local government, in which case secrecy and lack of resident participation is great!

Take another look at (B):
 
This answer choice makes a statement about how the world  should be . As discussed above, we simply do not have information to support this claim -- the passage tells us how the world  is  (according to the author), not how he/she believes it  ought  to be. This answer choice is not supported by the passage, so you can eliminate (B).

I hope that helps!

dharam44 · Answer

thanks a lot GMATNinja

And your new profile logo is pretty one

emcheeks · Answer

A is wrong because it is  mistaken reversal : 
the stimulus is saying  X->Y , but A is saying  not X -> not Y . We can never do that!

E is wrong because (quoted noah from manhattan prep forum)

Just because something is the contrapositive, doesn't mean it  causes  something else to happen.  For example:
 If Lucy is drunk, she dances. Does not dancing cause her not to be drunk? No.

soondoobu · Answer

GMATNinja  what makes A wrong?

GMATNinja · Answer

I'll steal from my  previous post  for a breakdown of the passage:

News media rarely cover local politics thoroughly. At the same time, local political business is usually conducted secretively. 
  These two factors result in the isolation of local politicians from their electorates. 
  The isolation of local politicians from electorates results in a lower chance that any act of resident participation will elicit a positive official response. 
  When there is a lower chance that any act of resident participation will elicit a positive official response, then residents will be discouraged from participating in local politics.

Here's (A):
 
The issue here is with the word "likely."

The passage talks in  relative  terms: the isolation of local politicians  reduces  the chances of an official response, in comparison to how often they would respond if they were NOT isolated. The problem is that we have no idea how great either of those chances actually are.

Maybe an isolated official only responds to one out of a hundred acts of resident participation, and a non-isolated official responds to two out of a hundred such acts. Here, the isolated official is LESS likely to respond, but the non-isolated official isn't exactly LIKELY to respond. He/she is just  slightly more responsive  than an isolated official, while still being pretty unresponsive.

So, the passage doesn't support the fact that "acts of resident participation would be  likely  to elicit a positive response from local politicians if those politicians were less isolated," as stated in (A). Sure, less isolated politicians might be  more likely  to respond than isolated politicians, but it could still be a unlikely outcome.

Eliminate (A).

I hope that helps!

CEdward · Answer

Editorialist: News media rarely cover local politics thoroughly, and local political business is usually conducted secretively. These factors each tend to isolate local politicians from their electorates. This has the effect of reducing the chance that any particular act of resident participation will elicit a positive official response, which in turn discourages resident participation in local politics.

Which one of the following is most strongly supported by the editorialist’s statements?

(A) Particular acts of resident participation  would be likely to elicit  a positive response from local politicians if those politicians were less isolated from their electorate.
-this may or may not be true
-we know that isolation of local politicians reduces the chance that any particular act of participation will elicit a positive response, but we don't know whether other factors contribute to eliciting a response

(B) Local political business  should be conducted  less secretively because this would avoid discouraging resident participation in local politics.
-this isn't an inference, but a normative claim about what should be the case

(C) The  most important factor  influencing a resident’s decision as to whether to participate in local politics is the chance that the participation will elicit a positive official response.
-extreme language, we don't know whether this is true or not

(D) More-frequent thorough coverage of local politics would reduce at least one source of discouragement from resident participation in local politics. CORRECT
-we know for sure that coverage of local politics is one of the factors leading to the isolation of politicians and hence discouragement of resident participation so surely improving such coverage would reduce such discouragement

(E) If resident participation in local politics were not discouraged, this  would cause  local politicians to be less isolated from their electorate.
-may or may not be true

wickedvikram · Answer

This was a very fine line, thanks a lot for explaining!

Hoehenheim · Answer

For the first time, I'd beg to differ with the explanation provided. Although I agree with the premise in the first paragraph, however, rather than relying on 'should be' and 'is' aspects of the world construction as stated in the question stem, I think it would be better to eliminate option B on the criteria that it can wrongfully confer two things:
1) 'Less' secretive conduction of political business would be appreciated by the people. It is also possible that people appreciate complete transparency from their politicians. Nothing is stated to correlate the amount of secrecy to the level of discouragement, as opposed to option (D).
2) Use of the word 'avoid' discouragement suggests that the feeling of discouragement could be averted entirely by doing as stated.

As per the second sentence, I'd like to think that both (B) and (D) are two sides of the same coin,  one however gives off a less hindered shine.

Editorialist: News media rarely cover local politics thoroughly

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

Editorialist: News media rarely cover local politics thoroughly

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