Multi-party initiatives are becoming increasingly popular among the m

Question

Multi-party initiatives are becoming increasingly popular among the members of the parliament of Country W. Although legislation proposed under the auspices of more than one party may not adhere as strictly to the agenda of each of the parties involved as legislation proposed by only one party, the political backing of the voting blocs represented by the cooperating parties make such proposals more likely to pass than proposals that come from a single faction alone. The benefit of multi-party initiatives is that legislation important to the general welfare of Country W that might otherwise have foundered in inter-party disagreements can effectively be enacted.

Which of the following can be inferred from the passage above?

A) Multi-party initiatives deal with proposals too large and complex for a single party to have passed into law.
 B) Multi-party initiatives produce a confluence of ideas that results in legislation that is generally better overall for the welfare of Country W.
 C) Multi-party initiatives have in the past been less common in the government of Country W than now.
 D) Jointly-supported proposals represent only the interests of the parties that back their passage into law.
 E) Jointly-supported proposals are not any more likely to be passed into law than proposals presented by individual parties.

DmitryFarberMPrep · Accepted Answer

So, why C over B? C is clearly true--it's just a flip of the initial statement. B is a trap! It resembles something said in the passage, but it mangles the idea. We are told that in a multi-party system, it is POSSIBLE for legislation important to the country's welfare to be enacted. B says that the legislation enacted will be GENERALLY BETTER OVERALL. We can't assess that. While some helpful legislation may be passed, it's also possible that some harmful legislation will also be passed, or that certain other kinds of important legislation will fail to be passed. We don't have enough information to assess the overall welfare of the country. This kind of over-reaching answer is a common trap on inference questions.

gvij2017 · Answer

Though multi-party system has lot of differences on a agenda, chances of passing of law is much more in multiparty system than that of in single party system benefiting the people of Country.W.

So B is answer.

jackspire · Answer

Anyone please explain the reasoning behind the answer.

shaarang · Answer

Multi-party initiatives are becoming increasingly popular among the members of the parliament of Country W. Although legislation proposed under the auspices of more than one party may not adhere as strictly to the agenda of each of the parties involved as legislation proposed by only one party, the political backing of the voting blocs represented by the cooperating parties make such proposals more likely to pass than proposals that come from a single faction alone. The benefit of multi-party initiatives is that legislation important to the general welfare of Country W that might otherwise have foundered in inter-party disagreements can effectively be enacted.

Which of the following can be inferred from the passage above?

A) Multi-party initiatives deal with proposals too large and complex for a single party to have passed into law.    
B) Multi-party initiatives produce a confluence of ideas that results in legislation that is generally better overall for the welfare of Country W.    
C) Multi-party initiatives have in the past been less common in the government of Country W than now.    
D) Jointly-supported proposals represent only the interests of the parties that back their passage into law.    
E) Jointly-supported proposals are not any more likely to be passed into law than proposals presented by individual parties.

prateek25 · Answer

Being less popular earlier does not mean they were less common. They still could be drafted in higher number but were not that popular. If we are being knit picky about answer choice B, we should be knit picky about C as well. Not sure how B is rejected but C is ok.

Posted from my mobile device

Posted from my mobile device

shaarang · Answer

It's a matter of interpretation.  Becoming increasingly popular... as a direct result of how easily those legislations can be passed...  means to me that they're being favoured more now than in the past. No such assumption can be made about B because the passage does not mention  exchange of ideas  at all -- it's an assumption the question gets you to make.

Edit: There's a big difference between  less popular  and  unpopular . In your interpretation, I believe you're going for the latter, which again, is an assumption on your part.

naturalimproviser · Answer

The question stem asks us to find the statement that can be inferred from the passage, so our goal is to find the answer choice which states something that is not particulary mentioned in the paragraph but can be inferred from the passage. Let's have a look at the answer choices -

A) Multi-party initiatives deal with proposals too large and complex for a single party to have passed into law.  (The complexity or the "size" of any kind of proposal is not mentioned anywhere in the passage -  OUT OF SCOPE )

B) Multi-party initiatives produce a confluence of ideas that results in legislation that is generally better overall for the welfare of Country W.  (This one is very tempting, but as this fact is actually mentioned in the passage that such a system of multi party initiatives in beneficial for the country, it is just a rephrased sentence. Hence, It is  not an inference .)

C) Multi-party initiatives have in the past been less common in the government of Country W than now.  ( This can be inferred from the first line of the paragraph which says "Multi-party initiatives are becoming increasingly popular among the members of the parliament of Country W." which means we can infer that this wasn't the state earlier in country W.  Correct )

D) Jointly-supported proposals represent only the interests of the parties that back their passage into law.  (The passage reveals no information regarding the interests of parties in jointly-supported proposals.  OUT OF SCOPE )

E) Jointly-supported proposals are not any more likely to be passed into law than proposals presented by individual parties.  (Again, the passage reveals no information regarding the likelihood of jointly-supported proposals or proposals presented by individual parties.  OUT OF SCOPE )

gvij2017 · Answer

Hello there.

First of all, whatever reason you have mentioned for rejecting option B is also applicable to option C.

Read-"Multi-party initiatives are becoming increasingly popular among the members of the parliament of Country W."
Option C is re-phrased of above sentence, isn't it?

Now read "The benefit of multi-party initiatives is that legislation  important to the general welfare of Country W  that might otherwise have foundered in inter-party disagreements can effectively be enacted"
Option B states the overall inference of the argument, not just re-phrasing the sentence.

Please let me know where I am wrong?

Arro44 · Answer

The beginning of the original statement mentions the increasing popularity of cross-party initiatives.
We can use this statement to infer that the number of this initiatives is higher today than it has been in the past.

This rationale leads me to choose C as the answer.

DmitryFarberMPrep · Answer

Allow me to clarify two things about inferences:

1) An inference is something that we can logically conclude from a certain set of information. There is no requirement that the information be unstated, or that it require a great deal of synthesis on our part. If I tell you that my name is Dmitry, you can infer that my name is Dmitry. That's fine! True, GMAT inferences will usually be harder than that, but  we can NEVER rule out an inference answer because the information is directly stated.  Rather, if it appears that the information is directly stated, we may want to double-check. Since that answer would be very easy, we may have missed a key difference that invalidates the answer.

2) An inference does not have to connect multiple concepts. In other words, we can't say that one inference is better because it is an overall conclusion or ties the argument together. Either it is true based on the statements, or it isn't. That's all. Some inferences will synthesize multiple points, especially if those points lead to a paradox or difficulty. (For example, if the stimulus tells me that I can't get a job without experience, but that I can only get experience through a job, then I can infer that if I don't have a job, I can't get one.) Other inferences will simply draw from one statement. Our job is to find the one answer that must be true based on the information we have. If more than one answer (or no answer) seems true, then we're mistaken or the question is a dud.

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.

Multi-party initiatives are becoming increasingly popular among the m

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

Multi-party initiatives are becoming increasingly popular among the m

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