Essayist: Politicians deserve protection from a prying press

Question

Essayist: Politicians deserve protection from a prying press. No one wants his or her private life spread across the pages of the newspapers. Furthermore, the press’s continual focus on politicians’ private lives dissuades talented people from pursuing a career in politics and turns reporters into character cops who walk their beats looking for minute and inconsequential personality flaws in public servants. It is time to put a halt to this trivial journalism.

Each of the following, if true, strengthens the essayist’s argument EXCEPT:

(A) The press is unusually inaccurate when it reports on people’s private lives. 
(B) Reporting on politicians’ private lives distracts voters from more important issues in a campaign. 
(C) Much writing on politicians’ private lives consists of rumors circulated by opposing candidates. 
(D) In recent elections, the best local politicians have refused to run for national office because of the intrusiveness of press coverage. 
(E) Politicians’ personality flaws often ultimately affect their performance on the job.

Posted from my mobile device

chetan2u · Answer

Essayist: Politicians deserve protection from a prying press. No one wants his or her private life spread across the pages of the newspapers. Furthermore, the press’s continual focus on politicians’ private lives dissuades talented people from pursuing a career in politics and turns reporters into character cops who walk their beats looking for minute and inconsequential personality flaws in public servants. It is time to put a halt to this trivial journalism.

Each of the following, if true, strengthens the essayist’s argument EXCEPT:

The para talks of the effect of trivial journalism on a politicians life, resulting in talented people not fighting for elections etc. It then concludes that trivial journalism should stop. We have to find what doesnot strengthen the argument

It supports the point of reporters becoming character cops who walk their beats looking for minute and inconsequential personality flaws
 
The para is about effect of such journalism on the politicians decision making and life, while this choice talks of effect on VOTERS. So really doesn't effect the argument's crux. But E is better as an answer.
 
Same as A
 
Strengthens the point that talented people do not stand for elections.
 
This gives a reason to justify such journalism. So, this choice not only does not strengthen, but also weakens the argument. Therefore, a better choice than B.

Although the answer should be E, but I do not find the choice B effecting the argument as it touches upon voters and not politicians. so shift in scope.

m1033512 · Answer

IMO A .

It talks about people not politicians and the argument is about politicians.

rest all talk about politicians in some way.

Posted from my mobile device

chetan2u · Answer

Hi,

Just a point on this..

The press is unusually inaccurate when it reports on people’s private lives .... politician are part of people, so the statement effects politician.. That is politician is a subset of people.
Had the argument been about people, and the choice read ' The press is unusually inaccurate when it reports on politician’s private lives .. This would not effect the argument as people is not a subset of politician

And E does mention politicians but it mentions them in a way that the argument is weakened

waytowharton · Answer

KarishmaB   GMATNinja   ExpertsGlobal5 
 AjiteshArun

Could you please help me understand why option A is incorrect? What does unusually incorrect mean? Doesn't it mean not commonly incorrect which is same as mostly correct. Hence this statement wouldn't strengthen. Please do let me know gap in my understanding.

KarishmaB · Answer

We have a perfect answer and that is (E). If the personality traits affect work, it is good that the journalists have their binoculars poised. The essayist is against this.

(A) is ambiguous at best. 
"unusual" means "not common in amount", exceptional, uncommon
"She is unusually beautiful" would normally mean "exceptionally beautiful".

So "unusually incorrect" likely means "a whole lot incorrect". Normal would be if someone is a bit incorrect. But unusually incorrect would be someone who is very often incorrect. 
In any case, as I said, this is ambiguous at best.

unraveled · Answer

Essayist: Politicians deserve protection from a prying press. No one wants his or her private life spread across the pages of the newspapers. Furthermore, the press’s continual focus on politicians’ private lives dissuades talented people from pursuing a career in politics and turns reporters into character cops who walk their beats looking for minute and inconsequential personality flaws in public servants. It is time to put a halt to this trivial journalism.

Each of the following, if true, strengthens the essayist’s argument EXCEPT:

(A) The press is unusually inaccurate when it reports on people’s private lives. - WRONG. Inaccurate and that too unusually it strongly suggests journalism affects negatively.
(B) Reporting on politicians’ private lives distracts voters from more important issues in a campaign. - WRONG. This had me off guard. But more important issues is key(vital than E when it is compared).
(C) Much writing on politicians’ private lives consists of rumors circulated by opposing candidates. - WRONG. Gives another reason why such argument was made.
(D) In recent elections, the best local politicians have refused to run for national office because of the intrusiveness of press coverage. - WRONG. Another reason given.
(E) Politicians’ personality flaws often ultimately affect their performance on the job. - CORRECT. Looks like journalism affecting politicians was inadvertently meant by this on first read. But look carefully it not journalism but the flaws that that journalism points out in politicians that affect their work. So, in a way intrusive journalism helps politicians/general people know things that affect politicians' work. Eventually prying press is good.

Answer E.

agrasan · Answer

Hi  KarishmaB   MartyMurray

(D) In recent elections, the best local politicians have refused to run for national office because of the intrusiveness of press coverage.

Could you please explain why (D) is wrong? My reasoning is (D) just  reaffirms the premise    ("the press’s continual focus on politicians’ private lives dissuades talented people from pursuing a career in politics")   given in the argument and anything that just confirms the given premise should not be a weakener or a strengthener.

guddo · Answer

Essayist: Politicians deserve protection from a prying press. No one wants his or her private life spread across the pages of the newspapers. Furthermore, the press’s continual focus on politicians’ private lives dissuades talented people from pursuing a career in politics and turns reporters into character cops who walk their beats looking for minute and inconsequential personality flaws in public servants. It is time to put a halt to this trivial journalism. 
 
Each of the following, if true, strengthens the essayist’s argument EXCEPT:

The essayist says coverage of politicians’ private lives is intrusive, discourages talented people from entering politics, and leads to trivial journalism focused on minor flaws. We need the one option that does not support that conclusion and instead undercuts it.

(A) The press is unusually inaccurate when it reports on people’s private lives.

This strengthens. Inaccuracy makes such coverage more harmful and less defensible.

(B) Reporting on politicians’ private lives distracts voters from more important issues in a campaign.

This strengthens. It adds another harm: it shifts attention away from substantive issues.

(C) Much writing on politicians’ private lives consists of rumors circulated by opposing candidates.

This strengthens. If it is rumor based, it is unreliable and more like sensationalism.

(D) In recent elections, the best local politicians have refused to run for national office because of the intrusiveness of press coverage.

This strengthens. It directly supports the claim that intrusive coverage dissuades talented people.

(E) Politicians’ personality flaws often ultimately affect their performance on the job.

This weakens the essayist’s framing. If flaws affect job performance, then investigating them is not necessarily  minute and inconsequential , so it does not support halting the coverage.

Answer: (E)

guddo · Answer

(D) is not “wrong.” It actually  strengthens  because it gives concrete evidence for the essayist’s causal claim that intrusive coverage  dissuades talented people .

Also, “reaffirms a premise” can still strengthen when the premise is itself a contestable factual claim. Here, “the press dissuades talented people” is not a given fact, it is part of what the essayist is trying to establish. So showing real elections where top local politicians refused to run because of press intrusiveness makes that claim more believable.

KarishmaB · Answer

... the press’s continual focus on politicians’ private lives dissuades talented people from pursuing a career in politics.
 
This is not a fact. It is the author's claim only - an intermediate conclusion.

Option (D) strengthens it by giving a specific example.

egmat · Answer

Your reasoning:  "D just confirms the premise, so it shouldn't strengthen."
 The issue:  There's a  key difference  between  restating  a premise and  providing evidence  for a premise.

Think of it this way: 
The essayist  claims  that press focus dissuades talented people from politics. But this is just a claim - we don't know if it's actually true.

Choice D gives us  real-world proof : "In recent elections, the best politicians HAVE refused to run because of press intrusiveness."

This transforms an unverified claim into a  proven fact . When a premise is proven true, the argument built on it becomes stronger.

Simple analogy: 
• Argument: "This restaurant has bad food, so avoid it."
• Evidence: "I ate there yesterday and got food poisoning."
• Does this strengthen?  Yes!  It proves the premise is true.

Evidence that supports a premise  strengthens  the argument - it proves the foundation is solid.

Why E is correct (doesn't strengthen): 
The essayist calls reporting on personality flaws "trivial" and "inconsequential."

But E says these flaws  "affect job performance."

If flaws affect how politicians do their jobs, then:
• Reporting on them is  NOT  trivial - it's  important information for voters 
• This  weakens  the argument that such journalism should stop

Answer: E

Hope this helps!

Essayist: Politicians deserve protection from a prying press

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

Essayist: Politicians deserve protection from a prying press

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