Committee member: Last week, committee members were encouraged to

Question

Committee member: Last week, committee members were encouraged to nominate candidates for the position of committee chairperson. So far, seven members have submitted nominations. That means we can expect contentious lead-up to the election. After all, such contention always occurs before an election whenever there are more than three candidates for any elected position.

Which of the following would be most useful to know in order to evaluate the likelihood of the committee member’s prediction?

(A) Whether any of the nominated members are known for arguing frequently with other members

(B) Whether a candidate can be nominated by more than one committee member

(C) Whether any more nominations for chairperson will be made

(D) Whether members were allowed to nominate themselves for chairperson

(E) Whether there has ever been contention before an election with only two candidates

This is a  CR Butler Question

Check the links to other Butler Projects: 
 
   Data Sufficiency Butler 
   Problem Solving Butler  
   Sentence Correction Butler  
   Reading Comprehension Butler  
   Integrated Reasoning Butler

proddnav · Answer

Option B is correct as it questions the assumption about multiple nominations for the same person. The answer to this question will affect the author's position. If it is Yes then the author's argument about the contention for election is under serious question.

The answer to other option choices will not seriously affect the author's argument

The answer to other option choices will not seriously affect the author's argument

ekanshgoyal · Answer

I am still not clear how B can help in evaluation against A and C

AndrewN · Answer

Hello,  ekanshgoyal . One way to approach evaluation questions is to question whether a different response to a given answer choice would affect the  exact  argument, prediction, or plan that is being made or implemented, similar to the process you follow with certain DS questions. That is, if you are unable to provide a conclusive answer to the question, then a given answer choice is not sufficient.

In the passage, the prediction is that because  seven members have submitted nominations... we can expect contentious lead-up to the election . The prediction is based on historical precedence:  whenever there are more than three candidates for any elected position , we are told,  such contention always occurs .

Answer choice (A) touches on the possible contentious nature of  any of the nominated members . However, the prediction does not invoke a premise that has anything to do with  the character  of the nominees—it is only interested in  the number  of members who have submitted nominations—so this concern cannot logically affect the prediction.

Answer choice (C) does center on counting nominations. Even so, the prediction has been made based on the fact that  seven members have   submitted nominations . We know nothing about the size of the committee: if it consisted of, say, eight members (I assuming that "so far" can reasonably be interpreted to mean that at least one more nomination could be forthcoming), the prediction could hold; if, instead, the committee consisted of a hundred members, the prediction could still hold. We would need to know more about  the number of candidates nominated  for the committee chairperson position.

Answer choice (B) is the correct answer because if  a candidate can be nominated by more than one committee member , then it could be true that all seven nominations so far were for the same candidate, or for two or three separate candidates, and the force of the last line of the passage would be diminished—the outcome that hinges on  more than three  candidates for the same position would not apply. On the other hand, if the seven members had to each nominate a separate candidate (for some odd reason), then the last line of the passage would provide support for the prediction regarding contention.

Perhaps the question and answer choices make a little more sense now. If you have further questions, feel free to ask. Good luck with your studies.

- Andrew

Karan0912 · Answer

Clearly Option B because it breaks the assumption that 7 members nominated >3 people, which may or may not be true given option B. Hence B is the answer.

Bunuel · Answer

KAPLAN OFFICIAL EXPLANATION:

STEP 1: IDENTIFY THE QUESTION TYPE 
The question asks for something that would be useful “to evaluate” a position. That signals an Evaluation question.

STEP 2: UNTANGLE THE STIMULUS 
The committee member predicts that there is likely to be a lot of contention before the upcoming election for committee chairperson. The evidence is that contention occurs any time there are more than three candidates, and seven nominations have already been made.

STEP 3: PREDICT THE ANSWER 
There are two assumptions here, both based on the suggestion that contention arises when there are more than three candidates for a position. First, the evidence only says seven nominations were made. That doesn’t mean those people are actually going to run in the election. Maybe some will decline the nomination, or maybe some will accept but then drop out. Second, there are seven nominations, but that doesn’t mean they are for seven different people. Perhaps everyone nominated the same member and that person will run unopposed. So the author is assuming both that the nominated members will be candidates and that more than three people were nominated. The correct answer will question whether either one of these assumptions is valid.

STEP 4: EVALUATE THE CHOICES  
 (B) is correct , as it questions the assumption about duplicated nominations. If candidates can receive multiple nominations, then the seven nominations need not be for more than three candidates. That would make the argument less convincing. However, if there is no duplication, then there are seven different people nominated, and the argument is strengthened. (A) is irrelevant. Contention is said to be based on the number of candidates in the election, not how argumentative those candidates are. (C) is irrelevant. There are already seven nominations. If that includes more than three distinct candidates, then it doesn’t matter how many more nominations, if any, are made. The prediction is valid either way. (D) is irrelevant. The contention is said to be based on the number of candidates, not on who nominated them. (E) is irrelevant. The argument is based on the assumption that there will be more than three candidates. It doesn’t matter what happens when there are only two candidates.

SafSin28 · Answer

Committee member: Last week, committee members were encouraged to nominate candidates for the position of committee chairperson. So far, seven members have submitted nominations. That means we can expect contentious lead-up to the election. After all, such contention always occurs before an election whenever there are more than three candidates for any elected position.

Which of the following would be most useful to know in order to evaluate the likelihood of the committee member’s prediction?

Question stem: To evaluate the conclusion

Conclusion: That means we can expect contentious lead-up to the election.

Evidence: 1. After all, such contention always occurs before an election whenever there are more than three candidates for any elected position. 2. So far, seven members have submitted nominations.

Background: Last week, committee members were encouraged to nominate candidates for the position of committee chairperson.

(A) Whether any of the nominated members are known for arguing frequently with other members (How the process is done is not important)

(B) Whether a candidate can be nominated by more than one committee member (If yes, then 1+more than 1= at least 3 and the other group is 7-at least 3= at most 4. If no, then 1+no more than 1=no more than 2. In this condition, 2, 2,2 and 1. This is below 3. So, the first situation contends the argument, the second breaks the content )

(C) Whether any more nominations for chairperson will be made (Adding extra nomination is not suit to the argument as it is out of scope)

(D) Whether members were allowed to nominate themselves for chairperson (We don't care for this!)

(E) Whether there has ever been contention before an election with only two candidates (This is another evidence. It doesn't play a role to evaluate the argument)

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

Committee member: Last week, committee members were encouraged to

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

Committee member: Last week, committee members were encouraged to

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