(A) Several years ago, 5,000 members of the Republican party registered as Democrats.
Talks about another year
Irrelevant to whether 6,000 happened
this yearTrap: Historical data feels relevant but doesn’t affect this year’s estimate.
[hr]
(B) The more than 90 percent of ward leaders not replying had no former Republicans registering as Democrats.
This is devastating.
If
230 ward leaders had ZERO, then:
- The entire city total = just the 500 from the 20 who replied
- The real total would be 500, not 6,000
This directly attacks the
representativeness of the sample.
✔
Correct answer[hr]
(C) Because they were too busy, more than 90 percent of the ward leaders did not reply.
❌ This explains
why they didn’t reply
❌ It does
not show their numbers were different
Busy wards could still have had many switchers.
Trap: Explaining non-response ≠ showing bias.
[hr]
(D) A number of the newly registered Democrats returned to the Republican party at a later date.
❌ The question is how many
became Democrats, not how many stayed
❌ Switching back later doesn’t affect the count
Trap: Confusing net change with gross change.
[hr]
(E) Similar figures can be produced from past years for registration changes from the Democratic party to the Republican party.
❌ Talks about the opposite direction
❌ Doesn’t affect this year’s Republican→Democrat estimate
Trap: Balance or symmetry sounds relevant but isn’t.
kshankarlz
Option B looks right..It negates the assumption..
Posted from my mobile device