Last visit was: 26 Apr 2026, 13:47 It is currently 26 Apr 2026, 13:47
Home
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
Close
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
Back to Forum
Create Topic
705-805 (Hard)|   Weaken|      
User avatar
Thelionking1234
User avatar
Joined: 09 Apr 2020
Last visit: 23 Apr 2022
Posts: 114
Own Kudos:
339
 [22]
Given Kudos: 569
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Entrepreneurship
Schools: ISB'22 (D)
GMAT 1: 690 Q49 V35
WE:Engineering (Other)
Products:
My Reviews
Schools: ISB'22 (D)
GMAT 1: 690 Q49 V35
Posts: 114
Kudos: 339
 [22]
At the Freedom Party presidential nominating convention, Candidate Aku 08 Aug 2020, 01:40
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
21
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
00:00
Start Timer
Pause Timer
Resume Timer
Show Answer
Hide
Show
History
D
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!

Difficulty:

75% (hard)

Question Stats:

56% (02:25) correct 44% (02:26) wrong based on 1323 sessions

History

Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
At the Freedom Party presidential nominating convention, Candidate Akubar had 100 pledged delegates, Smolenski had 80 pledged delegates, and Brown had 32 pledged delegates. However, Smolenski offered Brown the vice-presidential nomination if he would withdraw and endorse Smolenski. Consequently, 28 of Brown’s delegates pledged themselves to Smolenski. Since the party rules require delegates to honor their pledges in the final nominating vote taken at the end of the convention, Smolenski is assured of the nomination.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the prediction?


A) Almost all prominent political analysts believe that Smolenski is the least likely to win the general election.

B) Some of Brown’s pledged delegates switched their commitment to Akubar.

C) Several of Brown’s delegates who then committed to Smolenski admitted to doing so in exchange for financial considerations.

D) When the convention opened, none of the unpledged delegates had yet decided which of the candidates to vote for.

E) Most of the delegates to the convention this year have served as delegates to the party’s presidential nominating convention in previous years.
ShowHide Answer
Official Answer
D
avatar
WBogey
avatar
Joined: 05 May 2020
Last visit: 23 Sep 2022
Posts: 10
Own Kudos:
4
Given Kudos: 20
Location: Netherlands
Schools:
GPA: 3.59
Schools:
Posts: 10
Kudos: 4
At the Freedom Party presidential nominating convention, Candidate Aku 08 Aug 2020, 01:54
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hi there,

Could someone explain to me how D is the right answer? As far as I can tell, Smolenski has 80 + 28 = 108 (pledged) delegates, and Akubar has 100 pledged delegates. Even if the 4 unpledged delegates of Brown switch to Akubar, it would bring him to 104 (pledged) delegates which is less than Smolenski.

I'm probably missing something here....

Thanks in advance!


Thelionking1234
At the Freedom Party presidential nominating convention, Candidate Akubar had 100 pledged delegates, Smolenski had 80 pledged delegates, and Brown had 32 pledged delegates. However, Smolenski offered Brown the vice-presidential nomination if he would withdraw and endorse Smolenski. Consequently, 28 of Brown’s delegates pledged themselves to Smolenski. Since the party rules require delegates to honor their pledges in the final nominating vote taken at the end of the convention, Smolenski is assured of the nomination.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the prediction?


A) Almost all prominent political analysts believe that Smolenski is the least likely to win the general election.

B) Some of Brown’s pledged delegates switched their commitment to Akubar.

C) Several of Brown’s delegates who then committed to Smolenski admitted to doing so in exchange for financial considerations.

D) When the convention opened, none of the unpledged delegates had yet decided which of the candidates to vote for.

E) Most of the delegates to the convention this year have served as delegates to the party’s presidential nominating convention in previous years.
Show more
User avatar
Abhishek009
User avatar
Board of Directors
Joined: 11 Jun 2011
Last visit: 17 Dec 2025
Posts: 5,902
Own Kudos:
5,456
 [1]
Given Kudos: 463
Status:QA & VA Forum Moderator
Location: India
GPA: 3.5
WE:Business Development (Commercial Banking)
Posts: 5,902
Kudos: 5,456
 [1]
At the Freedom Party presidential nominating convention, Candidate Aku 08 Aug 2020, 02:00
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Thelionking1234
At the Freedom Party presidential nominating convention, Candidate Akubar had 100 pledged delegates, Smolenski had 80 pledged delegates, and Brown had 32 pledged delegates. However, Smolenski offered Brown the vice-presidential nomination if he would withdraw and endorse Smolenski. Consequently, 28 of Brown’s delegates pledged themselves to Smolenski. Since the party rules require delegates to honor their pledges in the final nominating vote taken at the end of the convention, Smolenski is assured of the nomination.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the prediction?


A) Almost all prominent political analysts believe that Smolenski is the least likely to win the general election.

B) Some of Brown’s pledged delegates switched their commitment to Akubar.

C) Several of Brown’s delegates who then committed to Smolenski admitted to doing so in exchange for financial considerations.

D) When the convention opened, none of the unpledged delegates had yet decided which of the candidates to vote for.

E) Most of the delegates to the convention this year have served as delegates to the party’s presidential nominating convention in previous years.
Show more


Mathemetically -

A = 100
S = 80 + 28 = 108
B = 32 - 28 = 4

Now, Check the options -

(A) Belief - Doesn't weaken , is just a judgement of prominent political analysts.
(B) Some switch , some may be 1 , 2 , 3 and can be any number and still S has a chance to win.
(C) exchange for financial considerations - Out of scope.
(E) Previous years record has no justification about this years outcome

Whereas If (D) is true then the entire mathemetical calculation is of no use and votes can go in favour of any candidate...

Thus, Answer must be (D)
User avatar
Thelionking1234
User avatar
Joined: 09 Apr 2020
Last visit: 23 Apr 2022
Posts: 114
Own Kudos:
339
 [3]
Given Kudos: 569
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Entrepreneurship
Schools: ISB'22 (D)
GMAT 1: 690 Q49 V35
WE:Engineering (Other)
Products:
My Reviews
Schools: ISB'22 (D)
GMAT 1: 690 Q49 V35
Posts: 114
Kudos: 339
 [3]
At the Freedom Party presidential nominating convention, Candidate Aku 08 Aug 2020, 02:01
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
2
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
WBogey
Hi there,

Could someone explain to me how D is the right answer? As far as I can tell, Smolenski has 80 + 28 = 108 (pledged) delegates, and Akubar has 100 pledged delegates. Even if the 4 unpledged delegates of Brown switch to Akubar, it would bring him to 104 (pledged) delegates which is less than Smolenski.

I'm probably missing something here....

Thanks in advance!
Show more

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

(1) Identify the Question
Since the question stem asks for the answer choice that undermines the prediction, the correct answer will make the conclusion less likely and this is a Weaken the Argument question.


(2) Deconstruct the Argument
Here is one possible way to map the argument.
A:100, S:80, B:32
After the deal, A:100, S:108, ?:4
Conclusion: S will win.

(3) State the Goal
On Weaken questions, the goal is to find an answer that makes the conclusion less likely. Select the choice that makes it less likely that Smolenski will assuredly win the nomination.


(4) Work From Wrong to Right


(A) Since the argument does not state that the political analysts have voting power, this choice is irrelevant, as their opinion does not make Smolenski’s nomination at the convention more or less likely.

(B) The argument establishes that four of Brown’s delegates did not switch to Smolinski. Some means at least one, but even if all four of these delegates switched to Akubar, Akubar would still have fewer votes.

(C) Since the argument does not indicate that such actions would result in the removal of voting rights, this choice is irrelevant, as it does not make Smolenski’s nomination less likely.

(D) CORRECT. If there were unpledged delegates, as this choice states, it would be numerically possible for Akubar to win if these unpledged delegates selected Akubar in the final vote. Thus, the conclusion that Smolenski was assured of victory is less likely.

(E) This choice is irrelevant. Whether delegates this year have previously served as delegates or not has no bearing on the outcome of the vote.
User avatar
hsingh3031
User avatar
Rotman School Moderator
Joined: 18 Feb 2018
Last visit: 22 Jun 2022
Posts: 66
Own Kudos:
66
 [2]
Given Kudos: 257
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Finance
GMAT 1: 500 Q46 V13
GPA: 4
WE:Corporate Finance (Energy)
Products:
My Reviews
GMAT 1: 500 Q46 V13
Posts: 66
Kudos: 66
 [2]
At the Freedom Party presidential nominating convention, Candidate Aku 08 Aug 2020, 04:51
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
D is the answer

Confusion is between B or D .

However B is not the answer as some can be any number like 1,2 or 20 . We don't know .

But D says unpledged candidates yet to decide and they will support anyone and they are Swing Votes. So D undermines the prediction.


(Kudos please if its useful for you)
avatar
raunak1922
avatar
Joined: 21 Jun 2020
Last visit: 20 Mar 2022
Posts: 13
Own Kudos:
8
 [2]
Given Kudos: 21
Location: India
Schools: ISB '23 (WL)
GMAT 1: 720 Q49 V40
GPA: 3.6
Schools: ISB '23 (WL)
GMAT 1: 720 Q49 V40
Posts: 13
Kudos: 8
 [2]
At the Freedom Party presidential nominating convention, Candidate Aku 08 Aug 2020, 21:29
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
I believe this is a poorly framed question.

The prediction is of assurance of the nomination. Assured here in this context means that he is 100% sure of getting the nomination.

B) Some of Brown’s pledged delegates switched their commitment to Akubar.

It doesn't matter who gets the nomination but Option B breaks this assurance. Well these are just my thoughts, correct me if I am wrong.
avatar
ParikshitAgrawal
avatar
Joined: 13 Jun 2020
Last visit: 31 Oct 2021
Posts: 7
Own Kudos:
12
 [1]
Given Kudos: 23
Concentration: Strategy, Finance
GPA: 4
Posts: 7
Kudos: 12
 [1]
At the Freedom Party presidential nominating convention, Candidate Aku 09 Aug 2020, 00:27
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Raunak1922,

If you read the question stem carefully, It provides you the information for the pledged delegates. And the conclusion it states is that since pledge delegates must/should honor their pledge/commitment, Smolenski is assured of a nomination.

Thus, a direct weakener to the above conclusion would be "what if the rest of the delegates (the unpledged delegates) do not vote Smolesnki". Hence, option D would be the correct answer.

Also, option B doesn't directly weaken the conclusion. There is an ambiguity of the number of votes "some" means in the choice. It may be 4, or 2 or 20. The vaguesness of the word "some" in B proves this answer inconclusive and thus wrong.

Hope this explains your query !!
avatar
gerash7
avatar
Joined: 09 Aug 2020
Last visit: 30 Sep 2020
Posts: 6
Own Kudos:
1
Given Kudos: 137
Posts: 6
Kudos: 1
At the Freedom Party presidential nominating convention, Candidate Aku 18 Aug 2020, 11:27
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
ParikshitAgrawal
Raunak1922,

If you read the question stem carefully, It provides you the information for the pledged delegates. And the conclusion it states is that since pledge delegates must/should honor their pledge/commitment, Smolenski is assured of a nomination.

Thus, a direct weakener to the above conclusion would be "what if the rest of the delegates (the unpledged delegates) do not vote Smolesnki". Hence, option D would be the correct answer.

Also, option B doesn't directly weaken the conclusion. There is an ambiguity of the number of votes "some" means in the choice. It may be 4, or 2 or 20. The vaguesness of the word "some" in B proves this answer inconclusive and thus wrong.

Hope this explains your query !!
Show more

It can't be 20, the people who pledged can't change as it is clearly stated. So it can be a max of 4, and even if all switch it won't affect the outcome.
On the other hand option D says, there are bunch of people who didn't declare to any of the three "at the beginning of the convention". So this number can be anything and swing the outcome.
User avatar
gvij2017
User avatar
Joined: 09 Aug 2017
Last visit: 18 Jun 2024
Posts: 663
Own Kudos:
508
Given Kudos: 778
Posts: 663
Kudos: 508
At the Freedom Party presidential nominating convention, Candidate Aku 18 Aug 2020, 18:22
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hey can you tell me the numbers of pledged and unpledged candidate when convention opens?

Acc to my understanding,
initially
A= 100
S= 80
B= 32

After accepting the offer of S by B, 28 of B's moved to S.
A= 100
S= 108
B = 4

As of now the given numbers are pledged to their respective leaders.

Now main question comes up-what is the number of unpledged candidates. Is it 4 or 28?
If it is 4, then even if these 4 moves to A, S will win the nomination.

But if it is 28, situation can be favorable for A or S.

Please help here to understand this completely.

Abhishek009
Thelionking1234
At the Freedom Party presidential nominating convention, Candidate Akubar had 100 pledged delegates, Smolenski had 80 pledged delegates, and Brown had 32 pledged delegates. However, Smolenski offered Brown the vice-presidential nomination if he would withdraw and endorse Smolenski. Consequently, 28 of Brown’s delegates pledged themselves to Smolenski. Since the party rules require delegates to honor their pledges in the final nominating vote taken at the end of the convention, Smolenski is assured of the nomination.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the prediction?


A) Almost all prominent political analysts believe that Smolenski is the least likely to win the general election.

B) Some of Brown’s pledged delegates switched their commitment to Akubar.

C) Several of Brown’s delegates who then committed to Smolenski admitted to doing so in exchange for financial considerations.

D) When the convention opened, none of the unpledged delegates had yet decided which of the candidates to vote for.

E) Most of the delegates to the convention this year have served as delegates to the party’s presidential nominating convention in previous years.


Mathemetically -

A = 100
S = 80 + 28 = 108
B = 32 - 28 = 4

Now, Check the options -

(A) Belief - Doesn't weaken , is just a judgement of prominent political analysts.
(B) Some switch , some may be 1 , 2 , 3 and can be any number and still S has a chance to win.
(C) exchange for financial considerations - Out of scope.
(E) Previous years record has no justification about this years outcome

Whereas If (D) is true then the entire mathemetical calculation is of no use and votes can go in favour of any candidate...

Thus, Answer must be (D)
Show more
avatar
gerash7
avatar
Joined: 09 Aug 2020
Last visit: 30 Sep 2020
Posts: 6
Own Kudos:
1
 [1]
Given Kudos: 137
Posts: 6
Kudos: 1
 [1]
At the Freedom Party presidential nominating convention, Candidate Aku 18 Aug 2020, 23:42
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
gvij2017
Hey can you tell me the numbers of pledged and unpledged candidate when convention opens?

Acc to my understanding,
initially
A= 100
S= 80
B= 32

After accepting the offer of S by B, 28 of B's moved to S.
A= 100
S= 108
B = 4

As of now the given numbers are pledged to their respective leaders.

Now main question comes up-what is the number of unpledged candidates. Is it 4 or 28?
If it is 4, then even if these 4 moves to A, S will win the nomination.

But if it is 28, situation can be favorable for A or S.

Please help here to understand this completely.

Abhishek009
Thelionking1234
At the Freedom Party presidential nominating convention, Candidate Akubar had 100 pledged delegates, Smolenski had 80 pledged delegates, and Brown had 32 pledged delegates. However, Smolenski offered Brown the vice-presidential nomination if he would withdraw and endorse Smolenski. Consequently, 28 of Brown’s delegates pledged themselves to Smolenski. Since the party rules require delegates to honor their pledges in the final nominating vote taken at the end of the convention, Smolenski is assured of the nomination.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the prediction?


A) Almost all prominent political analysts believe that Smolenski is the least likely to win the general election.

B) Some of Brown’s pledged delegates switched their commitment to Akubar.

C) Several of Brown’s delegates who then committed to Smolenski admitted to doing so in exchange for financial considerations.

D) When the convention opened, none of the unpledged delegates had yet decided which of the candidates to vote for.

E) Most of the delegates to the convention this year have served as delegates to the party’s presidential nominating convention in previous years.


Mathemetically -

A = 100
S = 80 + 28 = 108
B = 32 - 28 = 4

Now, Check the options -

(A) Belief - Doesn't weaken , is just a judgement of prominent political analysts.
(B) Some switch , some may be 1 , 2 , 3 and can be any number and still S has a chance to win.
(C) exchange for financial considerations - Out of scope.
(E) Previous years record has no justification about this years outcome

Whereas If (D) is true then the entire mathemetical calculation is of no use and votes can go in favour of any candidate...

Thus, Answer must be (D)
Show more


Option B: States that some of Brown's pledged candidate switched to Akubar.
This number can be 1,2,3 or 4. It can't be more than 4, as the other 28 have already pledged themselves to Smolenski and the passage clearly states once pledged they can't change(unless the candidate drops, like Brown).
So even if all 4 pledge to Akubar, it won't affect the outcome
Option B: doesn't undermine the conclusion. INCORRECT

Option D : It brings a whole new point saying there were unpledged candidates when the convention opened and they didn't pledge for any of the three.
The count of these candidates can be 5,10 or 50. We don't know and they can all decide to pledge to Akubar.
So option D seriously undermines the prediction that Smolenski is assured the nomination.CORRECT

Hope it helps
avatar
ParikshitAgrawal
avatar
Joined: 13 Jun 2020
Last visit: 31 Oct 2021
Posts: 7
Own Kudos:
12
Given Kudos: 23
Concentration: Strategy, Finance
GPA: 4
Posts: 7
Kudos: 12
At the Freedom Party presidential nominating convention, Candidate Aku 21 Aug 2020, 03:41
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
gerash7
ParikshitAgrawal
Raunak1922,

If you read the question stem carefully, It provides you the information for the pledged delegates. And the conclusion it states is that since pledge delegates must/should honor their pledge/commitment, Smolenski is assured of a nomination.

Thus, a direct weakener to the above conclusion would be "what if the rest of the delegates (the unpledged delegates) do not vote Smolesnki". Hence, option D would be the correct answer.

Also, option B doesn't directly weaken the conclusion. There is an ambiguity of the number of votes "some" means in the choice. It may be 4, or 2 or 20. The vaguesness of the word "some" in B proves this answer inconclusive and thus wrong.

Hope this explains your query !!

It can't be 20, the people who pledged can't change as it is clearly stated. So it can be a max of 4, and even if all switch it won't affect the outcome.
On the other hand option D says, there are bunch of people who didn't declare to any of the three "at the beginning of the convention". So this number can be anything and swing the outcome.
Show more

Lol the point was not on the number per se Gerash, but the logic behind it, which I believe you have understood. So, Great work :)
User avatar
gauravjain0211
User avatar
Joined: 19 Jan 2017
Last visit: 26 Apr 2026
Posts: 15
Own Kudos:
8
Given Kudos: 14
Posts: 15
Kudos: 8
At the Freedom Party presidential nominating convention, Candidate Aku 13 Jan 2022, 05:45
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Argument initially discusses the pledged candidates. Option D indicates there many be some unpledged candidates and this number can be beyond 100+80+32.
Hence unpledged candidates can be more than those remaining 4 that argument discusses.
User avatar
shubhim20
User avatar
Joined: 03 Feb 2025
Last visit: 27 Nov 2025
Posts: 107
Own Kudos:
3
Given Kudos: 156
Posts: 107
Kudos: 3
At the Freedom Party presidential nominating convention, Candidate Aku 15 Apr 2025, 04:00
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
but isn't B attacking the premise?

Thelionking1234
WBogey
Hi there,

Could someone explain to me how D is the right answer? As far as I can tell, Smolenski has 80 + 28 = 108 (pledged) delegates, and Akubar has 100 pledged delegates. Even if the 4 unpledged delegates of Brown switch to Akubar, it would bring him to 104 (pledged) delegates which is less than Smolenski.

I'm probably missing something here....

Thanks in advance!

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

(1) Identify the Question
Since the question stem asks for the answer choice that undermines the prediction, the correct answer will make the conclusion less likely and this is a Weaken the Argument question.


(2) Deconstruct the Argument
Here is one possible way to map the argument.
A:100, S:80, B:32
After the deal, A:100, S:108, ?:4
Conclusion: S will win.

(3) State the Goal
On Weaken questions, the goal is to find an answer that makes the conclusion less likely. Select the choice that makes it less likely that Smolenski will assuredly win the nomination.


(4) Work From Wrong to Right


(A) Since the argument does not state that the political analysts have voting power, this choice is irrelevant, as their opinion does not make Smolenski’s nomination at the convention more or less likely.

(B) The argument establishes that four of Brown’s delegates did not switch to Smolinski. Some means at least one, but even if all four of these delegates switched to Akubar, Akubar would still have fewer votes.

(C) Since the argument does not indicate that such actions would result in the removal of voting rights, this choice is irrelevant, as it does not make Smolenski’s nomination less likely.

(D) CORRECT. If there were unpledged delegates, as this choice states, it would be numerically possible for Akubar to win if these unpledged delegates selected Akubar in the final vote. Thus, the conclusion that Smolenski was assured of victory is less likely.

(E) This choice is irrelevant. Whether delegates this year have previously served as delegates or not has no bearing on the outcome of the vote.
Show more
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7391 posts
AbhishekP220108
506 posts
bhanu29
361 posts