Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Apr 2610:00 AM EDT
-11:00 AM EDT
The Target Test Prep course represents a quantum leap forward in GMAT preparation, a radical reinterpretation of the way that students should study. Try before you buy with a 5-day, full-access trial of the course for FREE!
Apr 2711:00 AM EDT
-12:00 PM EDT
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors
Apr 2808:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
23 Sep 2021, 01:30
Kudos
Bookmarks
B
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:
57% (02:36) correct
43%
(02:29)
wrong
based on 168
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
To win democratic elections that are not fully subsidized by the government, nonwealthy candidates must be supported by wealthy patrons. This makes plausible the belief that these candidates will compromise their views to win that support. But since the wealthy are dispersed among the various political parties in roughly equal proportion to their percentage in the overall population, this belief is false.
The argument is vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it fails to consider that
(A) the primary function of political parties in democracies whose governments do not subsidize elections might not be to provide a means of negating the influence of wealth on elections
(B) in democracies in which elections are not fully subsidized by the government, positions endorsed by political parties might be much less varied than the positions taken by candidates
(C) in democracies, government-subsidized elections ensure that the views expressed by the people who run for office might not be overly influenced by the opinions of the wealthiest people in those countries
(D) in democracies in which elections are not fully subsidized by the government, it might be no easier for a wealthy person to win an election than it is for a nonwealthy person to win an election
(E) a democracy in which candidates do not compromise their views in order to be elected to office might have other flaws
The argument is vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it fails to consider that
(A) the primary function of political parties in democracies whose governments do not subsidize elections might not be to provide a means of negating the influence of wealth on elections
(B) in democracies in which elections are not fully subsidized by the government, positions endorsed by political parties might be much less varied than the positions taken by candidates
(C) in democracies, government-subsidized elections ensure that the views expressed by the people who run for office might not be overly influenced by the opinions of the wealthiest people in those countries
(D) in democracies in which elections are not fully subsidized by the government, it might be no easier for a wealthy person to win an election than it is for a nonwealthy person to win an election
(E) a democracy in which candidates do not compromise their views in order to be elected to office might have other flaws
24 Sep 2021, 01:15
Kudos
Bookmarks
Bunuel
EXPLANATION FROM Fox LSAT
The logic basically goes like, “In order for Obama to be elected, Obama has to be supported by a rich patron. But since rich patrons are equally Republican and Democrat, Obama won’t have to compromise his views to get support from a rich patron.” The problem with this is that it assumes that Obama either has 100 percent Republican or 100 percent Democratic beliefs. This is not a fair assumption to make, because everyone has (or should have, if they have half a brain) slightly different perspectives on every issue. Why is it, for example, that everyone who favors free market economics is also supposed to be opposed to legal abortion, and everyone who is in favor of legal abortion is supposed to be in favor of big government? This only happens because people compromise their views in order to support either the asshole Republicans or the asshole Democrats. The two issues have no rational relationship to each other otherwise.
Anyway, my main criticism of the argument is something like, “You’ve assumed that candidates already believe exactly what one of the political parties believes.”
A) What does this even mean? It’s certainly not what we’re looking for.
B) Yep, this is pretty much it. If the candidates have more diverse viewpoints than the parties do, then they’ll have to compromise.
C) The argument was about elections that were not subsidized. This is irrelevant.
D) This is nice, but the argument wasn’t about whether nonwealthy people have a chance vs. wealthy people. Irrelevant.
E) This is certainly true, but it doesn’t weaken the logic behind “Obama won’t have to compromise his beliefs,” which was the conclusion of the argument. On a weaken or flaw question, we need to attack the argument that was actually made. Attack the conclusion.
Our answer is B
General Discussion
23 Sep 2021, 07:03
Kudos
Bookmarks
(neutral) Premise 1: In non-subsidized elections, non-wealthy candidates need wealthy patrons to WIN.
(negative) Premise 2:non-wealthy candidates WILL compromise their views to win the support of wealthy patrons.
(neutral) Premise 3: the wealthy are dispersed in various political parties in roughly EQUAL proportion to their percentage in the population.=> Largest political party will have the most wealthy patrons to support.
Conclusion: non-wealthy candidates WILL NOT compromise their views to win the support of wealthy patrons.
Missing Info: What about independent candidates? They have their own view points and stand by themselves( even though they themselves could be wealthly). But in political party setup, a party will have a view. Always there could be view that a candidate has that is different from the ideology of the political party they represent. But who are backing up this political party? Wealthy patrons! There is definitely a chance for candidates to compromise their view just by being in the political party.
(A) the primary function of political parties in democracies whose governments do not subsidize elections might not be to provide a means of negating the influence of wealth on elections
"Primary function of political party" is irrelevant to the "candidate's compromise". Eliminate.
(B) in democracies in which elections are not fully subsidized by the government, positions endorsed by political parties might be much less varied than the positions taken by candidates
Aha! B is the right choice. This states that political parties has less varied opinion while the candidates can have more. Meaning, say for example, if a political party has a 10 point program, the candidate will not necessarily agree for all them, but may like 9/10. Also, the candidate may have additional agenda apart from those projected by the political party during election ( like solution to localized problems). Hence this is the right choice.
(C) in democracies, government-subsidized elections ensure that the views expressed by the people who run for office might not be overly influenced by the opinions of the wealthiest people in those countries
"Government subsidized elections" is irrelevant to "candidate's compromise". Eliminate.
(D) in democracies in which elections are not fully subsidized by the government, it might be no easier for a wealthy person to win an election than it is for a nonwealthy person to win an election
Wining the election is irrelevant to the "candidate's compromise". Eliminate.
(E) a democracy in which candidates do not compromise their views in order to be elected to office might have other flaws
Candidates other flaws are irrelevant to the "candidate's compromise". Eliminate.
(negative) Premise 2:non-wealthy candidates WILL compromise their views to win the support of wealthy patrons.
(neutral) Premise 3: the wealthy are dispersed in various political parties in roughly EQUAL proportion to their percentage in the population.=> Largest political party will have the most wealthy patrons to support.
Conclusion: non-wealthy candidates WILL NOT compromise their views to win the support of wealthy patrons.
Missing Info: What about independent candidates? They have their own view points and stand by themselves( even though they themselves could be wealthly). But in political party setup, a party will have a view. Always there could be view that a candidate has that is different from the ideology of the political party they represent. But who are backing up this political party? Wealthy patrons! There is definitely a chance for candidates to compromise their view just by being in the political party.
(A) the primary function of political parties in democracies whose governments do not subsidize elections might not be to provide a means of negating the influence of wealth on elections
"Primary function of political party" is irrelevant to the "candidate's compromise". Eliminate.
(B) in democracies in which elections are not fully subsidized by the government, positions endorsed by political parties might be much less varied than the positions taken by candidates
Aha! B is the right choice. This states that political parties has less varied opinion while the candidates can have more. Meaning, say for example, if a political party has a 10 point program, the candidate will not necessarily agree for all them, but may like 9/10. Also, the candidate may have additional agenda apart from those projected by the political party during election ( like solution to localized problems). Hence this is the right choice.
(C) in democracies, government-subsidized elections ensure that the views expressed by the people who run for office might not be overly influenced by the opinions of the wealthiest people in those countries
"Government subsidized elections" is irrelevant to "candidate's compromise". Eliminate.
(D) in democracies in which elections are not fully subsidized by the government, it might be no easier for a wealthy person to win an election than it is for a nonwealthy person to win an election
Wining the election is irrelevant to the "candidate's compromise". Eliminate.
(E) a democracy in which candidates do not compromise their views in order to be elected to office might have other flaws
Candidates other flaws are irrelevant to the "candidate's compromise". Eliminate.
