Total contributions by individuals to political parties were up 25 per

Question

Total contributions by individuals to political parties were up 25 percent in this most recent presidential election over those of four years earlier. Hence, it is obvious that people are no longer as apathetic as they were, but are taking a greater interest in politics.

Which of the following, if true, would considerably weaken the preceding argument?

(A) The average contribution per individual actually declined during the same four-year period.

(B) Per capita income of the population increased by 15 percent during the four years in question.

(C) Public leaders continue to warn citizens against the dangers of political apathy.

(D) Contributions made by large corporations to political parties declined during the four-year period.

(E) Fewer people voted in the most recent presidential election than in the one four years earlier.

Source:  Master GMAT

dishankz · Answer

Total contributions by individuals to political parties went up than the previous presidential election. 
Conclusion: people are no longer as apathetic => People taking a greater interest in politics.
What would weaken it? - any topic which defines that people are not taking an interest.

(A) The average contribution per individual actually declined during the same four-year period.
- Doesn't mean people are taking an interest - it could be due to a larger contribution from a single entity as well.

(B) Per capita income of the population increased by 15 percent during the four years in question.
- Does not affirm any idea in topic
(C) Public leaders continue to warn citizens against the dangers of political apathy.
- Not related
(D) Contributions made by large corporations to political parties declined during the four-year period.
- doesn't weaken the conclusion
(E) Fewer people voted in the most recent presidential election than in the one four years earlier. - matches the premise.

Sarkar93 · Answer

Can someone please explain how (E) is the correct answer.

I opted for option (A).

The reason I rejected option E is just because fewer people voted in the presedential election doesn't prove that people are apathetic towards politics. There could be a number of explanations for low voter turnout such as bad weather, environmental crisis, not likable presendential canditates to vote for and such.

On the other hand, option (A) states that even though there is a 25% increase in contributions, those contributions are attributable to just a few people who have accounted for the rise rather than people contributing more per head.

ravigupta2912 · Answer

(A) The average contribution per individual actually declined during the same four-year period.

This would mean more individuals donated than 4 years ago. Strengthens the claim. Eliminated.

(B) Per capita income of the population increased by 15 percent during the four years in question.

It suggests or provides a reason for the increase in contributions. What we need is an argument that counters the "lower public apathy" claim.

Taking this to be right, it suggests that people are now contributing more to political parties. Strengthens the claim. Eliminated.

(C) Public leaders continue to warn citizens against the dangers of political apathy.

Irrelevant to the argument.

(D) Contributions made by large corporations to political parties declined during the four-year period.

The stem of the Q makes it clear that individual donations have risen. This is clearly out of scope. Eliminated.

(E) Fewer people voted in the most recent presidential election than in the one four years earlier.

This presents a contrary evidence to the one provided in question stem (increased donations) and is a more direct indicator of apathy to politics increasing. CORRECT.

Posted from my mobile device

ravigupta2912 · Answer

Lower average would require more number of people donating to cause a total increase. That would indicate decreasing apathy.

Hope this helps.

Posted from my mobile device

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Official Explanation

If you wanted to determine how politically active people are, what kind of test would you devise? You might do a survey to test political awareness; you might do a survey to find out how many hours people devote to political campaigning each week or how many hours they spend writing letters, etc.; or you might get a rough estimate by studying the voting statistics. The paragraph takes contributions as a measure of political activity.

(E)  is correct for two reasons. First, the paragraph says nothing about individual activity. It says total contributions were up, not average or per person contributions. Second,  (E)  cites voting patterns which seem as good as or better an indicator of political activity than giving money.

This second reason explains why  (A)  is wrong.  (A)  may weaken the argument, but a stronger attack would use voting patterns.

(D)  confuses individual and corporate contributions, so even if campaign giving were a strong indicator of activity,  (D)  would still be irrelevant.

(B)  does not even explain why contributions in toto rose during the four years, nor does it tell us anything about the pattern of giving by individual persons.

Finally,  (C)  seems the worst of all the answers, for it hardly constitutes an attack on the author’s reasoning. It seems likely that even in the face of increased political activity, public leaders would continue to warn against the dangers of political apathy.

The correct answer is (E).

Hope it helps

Pratyaksh1907 · Answer

Okay so A and E were the last 2 contenders for majority of the people.
tbh it took me 20 seconds to analyze and reject A and reached E with the process of elimination. E was the only option which was directly weakening the conclusion of the argument. Let's focus on Answer choice analysis for this one.

Sajjad1994

Total contributions by individuals to political parties were up 25 percent in this most recent presidential election over those of four years earlier. Hence, it is obvious that people are no longer as apathetic as they were, but are taking a greater interest in politics.

Which of the following, if true, would considerably weaken the preceding argument?

(A) The average contribution per individual actually declined during the same four-year period.

(B) Per capita income of the population increased by 15 percent during the four years in question.

(C) Public leaders continue to warn citizens against the dangers of political apathy.

(D) Contributions made by large corporations to political parties declined during the four-year period.

(E) Fewer people voted in the most recent presidential election than in the one four years earlier.

Source: Master GMAT

(A) The average contribution per individual actually declined during the same four-year period.

Let us take an example, 4 years ago, 4 people contributed $25 in the political party. Average is $25 and total contribution is $100
Now, according to option A, if the average has to decrease then,
25 (say) people contributed 5$, Total contribution now is 125 and the average contribution is $5.

	4 years before	In past 4 years
# of people making contribution	4	25
Amount per person	$25	$5
Average amount	$25	$5
Total contribution	$100	$125

As we can see, by decreasing the average contribution, the # of people increased. This implies that more people are interested in politics now.
Therefore, this choice is a strengthener.

(B) Per capita income of the population increased by 15 percent during the four years in question.
But total contribution increased by 25%. So the difference 10% increase could be coming from more people getting interested in politics.

(C) Public leaders continue to warn citizens against the dangers of political apathy.
Again a strengthener. More awareness means more people getting interested.

(D) Contributions made by large corporations to political parties declined during the four-year period.
Strengthening the part that more people are getting interested.

(E) Fewer people voted in the most recent presidential election than in the one four years earlier.
This directly weakened that conclusion. Even if the total contribution increased by 25%, it may not be because of more people getting interested in politics.

Hope it helps,
Thanks

Total contributions by individuals to political parties were up 25 per

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

Total contributions by individuals to political parties were up 25 per

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