Editorial in Golbindian Newspaper: For almost three months,

Question

Editorial in Golbindian Newspaper: For almost three months, opposition parties have been mounting daily street demonstrations in the capital in an effort to pressure the ruling party into calling an election. Though the demonstrations were well attended at first, attendance has declined steadily in recent weeks.

However, the decline in attendance does not indicate that popular support for the opposition's demands is dropping, since

(A) the opposition's demands have not changed during the period when the street demonstrations have been mounted.

(B) No foreign governments have expressed any support for the opposition's demands.

(C) The state-controlled media have ceased any mention of the demonstrations, leaving many citizens outside the capital with no way of knowing that demonstrations continue.

(D) There have not recently been any anti government demonstrations in cities other than the capital.

(E) A recent sharp decrease in unemployment has led to increased popular support for the government.

MarkSullivan · Accepted Answer

It helps to first classify the question type. I'd call this an "explain the discrepancy".

The quick summary is that the size of the demonstrations has been decreasing, but we're trying to explain why this might  not  mean a drop in public support for the opposition.

Be careful not to mix the two groups – there are the  demonstrators  themselves and then there is the  public  (meaning everyone in the country). If (E) is true, then yes, you are correct, some demonstrators might now have jobs and that could explain whey there are fewer demonstrators on the street. But notice what (E) says about the  public : the decrease in unemployment "has led to   increased   popular support for the government."

We wanted to argue that support for the demonstrators had not declined, but if more people support the government then surely it has!

The decline in unemployment alone may help resolve the discrepancy, but if it's accompanied by an increase in support for the government that actually makes the discrepancy worse.

Cheers,
Mark

buckkitty · Answer

C. Media stopped covering the demonstrations, so those who support the oppostion that live outside the capital think they are no longer going on. Less people to come and demonstrate.

venmic · Answer

please can an expert explain this

I was thinking E

it looks for a reason to show that the attendance decline does not mean decline in support

if a decrease in unemployment implies people have started getting jobs so they are busy working and cannot attend does not mean that people now dont show intrest

so it should be E

can anyone explain a general streagtegy for solving these problems

pedrotupy · Answer

You must look for something to explain why the people could still support the movement but are not able to be present on the streets, it looks that only C support this strategy.

Nevernevergiveup · Answer

Conclusion: the decline in attendance does not indicate that popular support for the opposition’s demands is dropping.

We are asked to explain the cause to explain the discrepancy. We should search for a statement which says that support did not for opposition demands.

a: the opposition’s demands have not changed during the period when the street demonstrations have been mounted.
 This does not explain anything regarding support. Wrong answer

b: No foreign governments have expressed any support for the opposition’s demands.
 Completely out of scope

c: The state-controlled media have ceased any mention of the demonstrations, leaving many citizens outside the capital with no way of knowing that demonstrations continue.  This explains the reason why public is not turning up for the event. They are not aware of it. This is the correct choice.

D. There have not recently been any anti-government demonstrations in cities other than the capital.
 Completely out of scope

E. A recent sharp decrease in unemployment has led to increased popular support for the government.
 This does not explain anything regarding reduction in the number of people.

chetan2u · Answer

Which of the following most logically completes the editorial below?

Editorial in Golbindian Newspaper: For almost three months, opposition parties have been mounting daily street demonstrations in the capital in an effort to pressure the ruling party into calling an election. Though the demonstrations were well attended at first, attendance has declined steadily in recent weeks. However, the decline in attendance does not indicate that popular support for the opposition’s demands is dropping, since _____________

the question is between dwindling attendence and support for demands

A. the opposition’s demands have not changed during the period when the street demonstrations have been mounted.
 opposition demands not changing does not quantify anything. may be the demands have lost its sheen

B. No foreign governments have expressed any support for the opposition’s demands.
 foreign governments support is out of context

C. The state-controlled media have ceased any mention of the demonstrations, leaving many citizens outside the capital with no way of knowing that demonstrations continue. this gives us a reason for less attendence even though the support remains.. correct

D. There have not recently been any antigovernment demonstrations in cities other than the capital.
 out of context

E. A recent sharp decrease in unemployment has led to increased popular support for the government
 this rather states opposite

ans C

AbdurRakib · Answer

Correct Answer C

Answer Choice A is wrong because it actually demonstrated/restated a part of the premise of the argument.

Thanks

sleepynut · Answer

Hi experts,

Kindly request for help.I have question about option C.

How can this restriction reduce the number of people demonstrating against the government? It could help explain why the number doesn't rise but not why it decreases since people who have once joined are already known about the demonstration. IMHO,why some of those people are no longer at the demonstration can't be explained by this restriction.

What did I miss from the argument?
Thanks

AbdurRakib · Answer

About Correct Answer C:

Due to State-controlled media's restriction ,People outside the capital are  not well informed(or at-least discouraged )anymore  about the demonstration's existence in the capital.May be ,more people could come to the daily street demonstration in the capital if the media didn't restrict .

Above information actually strengthen the idea that the demonstration is still popular even though participant people is decreasing.

Thanks

gsingh0711 · Answer

We are told that the opposition party’s rallies were well attended initially. However, of late the rallies have faced declining attendance. Yet, the author believes that the drop in attendance does not prove the decline in public support. We need to prove the author’s belief to be correct.

Whether the demands have changed or not does not explain the degree of public support for the opposition’s demands.
Foreign governments are out of scope.
CORRECT. Since people are not aware of the continuing demonstrations, they have not been able to take part in them But this does not mean that people do not support the campaign anymore.
‘Demonstrations in other cities’ is irrelevant.
‘Unemployment’ is out of scope.

agrasan · Answer

We have to find a reason why the author thinks that the decline in attendance does not indicate that popular support for the opposition's demands is dropping

(A) the opposition's demands have not changed during the period when the street demonstrations have been mounted.  
 Cannot be a reason , this doesn't throw any light on the link between decline in attendance and the opposition's demands.

(B) No foreign governments have expressed any support for the opposition's demands.  
 Cannot be a reason , if foreign governments have not ever expressed any support then we don't get a reason why the decline in attendance happened.

(C) The state-controlled media have ceased any mention of the demonstrations, leaving many citizens outside the capital with no way of knowing that demonstrations continue.  
 Can be a reason , this presents an alternate reason behind the decline in attendance, it happened due to unawareness of people rather than a lack of support.

(D) There have not recently been any anti government demonstrations in cities other than the capital.  
 Cannot be a reason , we are only concerned about the capital, not about other cities.

(E) A recent sharp decrease in unemployment has led to increased popular support for the government.  
 Cannot be a reason , this option goes in opposite direction and hints that the decline in attendance because have started liking the ruling party as they got new jobs recently from the earlier state of unemployment.

Editorial in Golbindian Newspaper: For almost three months,

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

Editorial in Golbindian Newspaper: For almost three months,

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