Maria: Calling any state totalitarian is misleading: it implies total

Question

Competition Mode Question

Maria: Calling any state totalitarian is misleading: it implies total state control of all aspects of life. The real world contains no political entity exercising literally total control over even one such aspect. This is because any system of control is inefficient, and, therefore, its degree of control is partial.
James: A one-party state that has tried to exercise control over most aspects of a society and that has, broadly speaking, managed to do so is totalitarian. Such a system’s practical inefficiencies do not limit the aptness of the term, which does not describe a state’s actual degree of control as much as it describes the nature of a state’s ambitions.

James responds to Maria’s argument by

(A) pointing out a logical inconsistency between two statements she makes in support of her argument

(B) offering an alternative explanation for political conditions she mentions

(C) rejecting some of the evidence she presents without challenging what she infers from it

(D) disputing the conditions under which a key term of her argument can be appropriately applied

(E) demonstrating that her own premises lead to a conclusion different from hers

unraveled · Answer

Maria: Calling any state totalitarian is misleading: it implies total state control of all aspects of life. The real world contains no political entity exercising literally total control over even one such aspect. This is because any system of control is inefficient, and, therefore, its degree of control is partial.
James: A one-party state that has tried to exercise control over most aspects of a society and that has, broadly speaking, managed to do so is totalitarian. Such a system’s practical inefficiencies do not limit the aptness of the term, which does not describe a state’s actual degree of control as much as it describes the nature of a state’s ambitions.

James responds to Maria’s argument by

(A) pointing out a logical inconsistency between two statements she makes in support of her argument

(B) offering an alternative explanation for political conditions she mentions

(C) rejecting some of the evidence she presents without challenging what she infers from it

(D) disputing the conditions under which a key term of her argument can be appropriately applied

(E) demonstrating that her own premises lead to a conclusion different from hers

James gives an explanation which clearly points out how a state can be totalitarian with Maria's apprehension. James changes the definition given by Maria. Only A does to explain that.

IMO Answer A.

exc4libur · Answer

ARGUMENT
  totalitarian state's are those that control every aspect of life
  but, no such state exists controlling every aspect of life, let alone one such aspect
  and, any system of control is inefficient, and thus its control is partial
  not only no state is totalitarian, but also all systems of control are inefficient
  a state is totalitarian if he has control over most aspects of life
  system inefficiencies do not limit its aptness

Ans (D) he is disputing how "totalitarian" is applied

razorhell · Answer

Ans B:

James brings in an alternative reasoning to attack Maria's conclusion

(A) pointing out a logical inconsistency between two statements she makes in support of her argument

(B) offering an alternative explanation for political conditions she mentions .. Correct

(C) rejecting some of the evidence she presents without challenging what she infers from it 
 
 (D) disputing the conditions under which a key term of her argument can be appropriately applied

(E) demonstrating that her own premises lead to a conclusion different from hers

ravigupta2912 · Answer

The argument presents two different conditions under which a state can be termed as "totalitarian". The logic presented by first speaker is not disputed by the second speaker but the 2nd speaker merely points out that condition for calling a state "totalitarian" may not be the conditions as described by 1st speaker but instead something else.

Therefore, choice A (logical inconsistency), B (explanation for political conditions), C (rejecting some of the evidence) and E (common premises leading to different conclusion) can be rejected.

D is a winner since it matches our pre-thinking in so far as it talks of "disputing the condition under which key terms (totalitarian) can be applied"

Yellkrishna · Answer

M defines what a totalitarian system must actually imply. 
J says that practically, the definition must be slightly altered. 
A. There is no logical inconsistency in M’s argument. 
B. The conditions under which the term totalitarian must be applied has been discussed by J. So good. 
C. J does not reject anything M says. 
D. J does not dispute the conditions under which the term totalitarian can be applied. He disputes the meaning of totalitarian in real world. 
E. M’s premise is ‘ Calling any state totalitarian is misleading’. This doesn’t lead to a different conclusion.

Posted from my mobile device

thelastskybender · Answer

Maria: Calling any state totalitarian is misleading: it implies total state control of all aspects of life. The real world contains no political entity exercising literally total control over even one such aspect. This is because any system of control is inefficient, and, therefore, its degree of control is partial.
James: A one-party state that has tried to exercise control over most aspects of a society and that has, broadly speaking, managed to do so is totalitarian. Such a system’s practical inefficiencies do not limit the aptness of the term, which does not describe a state’s actual degree of control as much as it describes the nature of a state’s ambitions.

James responds to Maria’s argument by

(A) pointing out a logical inconsistency between two statements she makes in support of her argument   
 
(B) offering an alternative explanation for political conditions she mentions    He didn't offer any alternative explanation] ]

(C) rejecting some of the evidence she presents without challenging what she infers from it

(D) disputing the conditions under which a key term of her argument can be appropriately applied

(E) demonstrating that her own premises lead to a conclusion different from hers   Hell Naw! ]

Chadwik · Answer

Maria's Argument:
Calling any state "totalitarian" is misleading.

Why? Because totalitarian implies total control, and no state actually exercises literal total control.

Control systems are inherently inefficient, so control is always partial.

➡ Maria's definition of "totalitarian" = absolute, literal total control → which she argues never happens.

James’s Response:
Says: A one-party state that tries to control most aspects and mostly succeeds is rightly called totalitarian.

Inefficiencies don't matter — the term describes the state's ambitions, not literal success or complete control.

➡ James’s definition of "totalitarian" = ambition to control all aspects, not perfect execution.

So, how does James respond?
He’s saying:

Maria is using the word “totalitarian” too literally. The aptness of the term comes from the intent/goal of the regime, not from perfect control in practice.

So he’s disputing how the key term “totalitarian” should be applied — based on intent (his view) vs. literal outcome (Maria’s view).

Option Analysis: 
(A) pointing out a logical inconsistency between two statements she makes in support of her argument
→ No. James doesn’t say Maria contradicts herself.

(B) offering an alternative explanation for political conditions she mentions
→ No, James isn’t explaining why states behave a certain way — he’s debating a definition.

(C) rejecting some of the evidence she presents without challenging what she infers from it
→ Incorrect — James accepts her point about inefficiency, but challenges her conclusion. He’s arguing that inefficiency doesn’t matter for labeling a regime as totalitarian.

(D) disputing the conditions under which a key term of her argument can be appropriately applied
✅ Correct.
James is directly disputing Maria’s definition and application of the term “totalitarian”.

(E) demonstrating that her own premises lead to a conclusion different from hers
→ This would mean a reductio ad absurdum or internal contradiction — not what James does.

Maria: Calling any state totalitarian is misleading: it implies total

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

Maria: Calling any state totalitarian is misleading: it implies total

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