Multi-party initiatives are becoming increasingly popular among the me

Question

Multi-party initiatives are becoming increasingly popular among the members of the parliament of Country W. Although legislation proposed under the auspices of more than one party may not adhere as strictly to the agenda of each of the parties involved as legislation proposed by only one party, the political backing of the voting blocs represented by the cooperating parties make such proposals more likely to pass than proposals that come from a single faction alone. The benefit of multi-party initiatives is that legislation important to the general welfare of Country W that might otherwise have foundered in inter-party disagreements can effectively be enacted.

Which of the following statements by a minister of Party C in the government of Country W is most consistent with the beliefs of an individual political party in the situation described above?

A) "Our party would rather compromise on some of our issues and also see other parties compromise on their issues than run the risk of not having legislation that we propose pass."

B) "Our party would rather give up a few minor points of ideology than risk having the issues important to our constituents not be addressed as a result of the government's inability to pass any new laws. "

C) "Our party would rather participate in an environment that fosters inter-party cooperation than persist in constant conflict with other parties."

D) "Our party would rather have other parties join in support of our legislation than join in supporting the proposals of other parties."

E) "Our party would rather have our proposals passed because they represent what is best for the welfare of our country than to become engaged in the agendas of other parties."

pqhai · Accepted Answer

Because the original question has some errors, I will quote the complete version below for more discussion.

ANALYZE THE STIMULUS:

Proposal X under the multi-parties initiatives may not adhere as strictly to the agenda of each of the parties involved as legislation proposed by only one party.
However, this proposal is more likely to pass than proposals that come from a single faction alone. 
==> The benefit of multi-party initiatives is that legislation X can effectively be enacted. 
==> Multi-party initiatives are becoming increasingly popular

The correct answer will have to demonstrate the relationship: Proposal X   that  comprise issues of multi-parties ==> Proposal X may not adhere as strictly to the agenda of each of the parties  ==> have benefit for multi-parties ==> more likely to pass

ANALYZE EACH ANSWER:

C, D, E are out immediately because:
C) "Our party would rather participate  in an environment that fosters inter-party cooperation  than persist in constant conflict with other parties."
 Wrong.  Clearly out of scope.

D) "Our party would rather have  other parties join in support of our legislation  than join in supporting the proposals of other parties."
 Wrong.  Clearly out of scope.

E) "Our party would rather have our proposals passed because they represent what is best for the welfare of our country than to become engaged in the agendas of other parties.
 Wrong.   Does not show the benefit for multi-parties .

Between A & B, which one is correct?  
A is  WRONG . Only   B is correct  . Please see explanation in the image attached.

VeritasPrepBrandon · Answer

This critical reasoning question has a couple tricky answer choices, and ultimately comes down to precision in wording (as difficult critical reasoning questions typically do). The prompt says that multi-party initiatives are becoming more popular in country W because the benefit of an increased likelihood of passing is significant when considered against the cost of no party being able to adhere as strictly to its own agenda. The reason that an increased likelihood of passing is a benefit is that legislation important to the general welfare of Country W is more likely to pass.

Answer choice A is tricky, and is half right. It is true that a party would rather compromise on some issues and have other parties compromise on some issues than not work with other parties, but the benefit is not about passing its own legislation, but rather about improving the general welfare.

Answer choice B nails it and is thus correct. The party is okay not being able to adhere as strictly to its own agenda because the benefit of being able to pass laws that address issues which are important to constituents (important to the general welfare of country W) is worth it.

Answer choice C sets a tone that the benefit of cooperation is simply not having conflict, which is not what the argument says. C is basically saying that the party wants to cooperate because it wants peace.

Answer choice D is not discussing cooperation but rather one party or the other dominating, so is easily dismissed.

Answer choice E is a little tricky because it is discussing the welfare of the country. The fact that they used the word "welfare," the same word as in the prompt, makes this a very tricky trap answer choice. E however is treating the situation as though the party will pass its own proposals for the benefit of the country but will completely avoid working with other parties (rather than passing these proposals that will improve the welfare of the country by working with other parties). Be suspicious in difficult critical reasoning questions of answer choices that contain very similar wording as the prompt, when a lot of the other answer choices do not contain similar wording and are more difficult to understand. The similar worded answer choice may be a trap like this one.

I hope this helps!

nervousgmat · Answer

I would go with B.
I was debating between A and B for a while but think that B addresses the points that a paragraph makes better than A does. 
B actually addresses the statement "legislation important to the general welfare of Country W" while A only addresses a concern of a Party C minister about legislation proposed by his own party as opposed to the importance of the legislation for the country.

mattce · Answer

Bump...

Can't anyone please clarify why A is wrong?

I understand why B is correct; and might even agree that it could possibly be better than A... But I don't understand why A is incorrect.

.. Or is A correct but just less correct than B?

Any clarification would be great

Nevernevergiveup · Answer

Multi-party initiatives are becoming increasingly popular among the members of the parliament of Country W. Although legislation proposed under the auspices of more than one party may not adhere as strictly to the agenda of each of the parties involved as legislation proposed by only one party, the political backing of the voting blocs represented by the cooperating parties make such proposals more likely to pass than proposals that come from a single faction alone. The benefit of multi-party initiatives is that legislation important to the general welfare of Country W that might otherwise have foundered in inter-party disagreements can effectively be enacted.

Quote:

Which of the following statements by a minister of Party C in the government of Country W is most consistent with the beliefs of an individual political party in the situation described above?

what does he refer when he said individual political party, is it a part of Multi-party initiatives(Left hand side of the table) or individual party(Right hand side of the table) on its own?
Since the argument referred to the latter one as single faction alone I understand individual party in above situation refers to one of the multi-parties.

Attachment:

2.jpg [ 53.28 KiB | Viewed 15551 times ]

A) "Our party would rather compromise on some of our issues and also see other parties compromise on their issues than run the risk of not having legislation that we propose pass."
Nowhere it is mentioned that the party will see that other parties issues are compromised. Also no such risk is mentioned in the argument

B) "Our party would rather give up a few minor points of ideology than risk having the issues important to our constituents not be addressed as a result of the government's inability to pass any new laws. "
So their prominence is to pass legislation important to the general welfare of Country W that might otherwise have foundered in inter-party disagreements can effectively be enacted.

C) "Our party would rather participate in an environment that fosters inter-party cooperation than persist in constant conflict with other parties."
It is true that Party cooperates but it is not mentioned that it does so to avoid conflict. Their goal is to pass legislation that do some welfare to state.

D) "Our party would rather have other parties join in support of our legislation than join in supporting the proposals of other parties."
This is something which goes completely awry and cannot be inferred at all. This is contradictory to the argument—both parties seem to give and take equally in a multi-party initiative in the argument.

E) "Our party would rather have our proposals passed because they represent what is best for the welfare of our country than to become engaged in the agendas of other parties."
As per argument they say that they compromise for welfare and nowhere it is mentioned that only their proposal do welfare to the country and especially it is mentioned they have to compromise regarding their individual agendas. This negates the premises.

rukna · Answer

Need clarification b.w A and B. Still not clear.

Nevernevergiveup · Answer

A) "Our party would rather compromise on some of our issues and also see other parties compromise on their issues than run the risk of not having legislation that we propose pass."
 Nowhere it is mentioned that the party will see that other parties issues are compromised. Also no such risk is mentioned in the argument
 
B) "Our party would rather give up a few minor points of ideology than risk having the issues important to our constituents not be addressed as a result of the government's inability to pass any new laws. "
 So their prominence is to pass legislation important to the general welfare of Country W that might otherwise have foundered in inter-party disagreements can effectively be enacted.

rukna

A contains few new information which is a strict no-no for inference questions.
I hope this clears the air.

mvictor · Answer

I narrowed down to B and C...spent some extra time to eliminate C...
one party may not adhere as strictly to the agenda of each of the parties involved - so give up few minor points of ideology to achieve smth from which everyone will benefit.

A - is opposite of what it was described...it is not a compromise...
C - not really
D - extreme and not correct
E - totally opposite of what is described in argument.

Nunuboy1994 · Answer

While "A" seems to be an attractive answer choice with the whole "than run risk of not having legislation that we propose pass' it is actually not accurate based on the stimulus. Albeit, it's one of the hardest critical questions I've seen- like something on the LSAT- but what the stimulus is basically saying is that within a country if you have four factions, say "party a, b, c ,d" or tribes and we run a multi-party initiative then it would be more likely for a piece of legislation to pass even if it leaves out some the ideas and beliefs of those factions- it just has to compromise the most important ideas . That being said, if get one person to do it or just one faction then that person's suggested legislation would of course confide with their values but it may not actually be passed. So it's better to get a bunch of people or multiple political factions to agree on something because it increases the likelihood of a piece of legislation, say a ban on gas powered cars, to be passed. A is too ambitious and contradicts the conclusion - the last sentence in the stimulus. What B is more accurately stating is that it's fine to give up some of our issues "ideology" if that ultimately means agreeing on the most important issues with other factions so as to propose legislation that is conducive or beneficial to the welfare of Country W. The few minor points of ideology are essentially what the last is sentence is asserting when it says "that might have otherwise foundered in inter-party disagreements"

gmat1393 · Answer

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION:

Identify the Question Type:

This question stem may be wordy, but it still merely asks for a statement that is "consistent with" the information provided, making this an Inference question. Specifically, it will be consistent with the information provided about individual parties.

Untangle the Stimulus:

This question refers to an increase in multi-party initiatives in Country W. Such initiatives won't satisfy all of the goals of any individual party, but they're more likely to get passed. This would benefit the public, who would get helpful legislation passed that would have otherwise been dismissed.

Predict the Answer:

The correct answer will be a statement by an individual party that coincides with how individual parties are presented. With these multi-party initiatives, individual parties are joining together, even though the proposed legislation "may not adhere" entirely to each individual party's agenda. So why the compromise? Because it will make the legislation "more likely to pass," providing benefits to the general welfare. The correct answer will be consistent with this idea of sacrificing a little for the greater good.

Evaluate the Choices:

(B) is consistent and is correct. This matches the idea of supporting laws that don't entirely adhere to the party's agenda, and instead working on laws that are "more likely to pass" that address "issues important to the general welfare" of the constituents.

(A) is not supported. There's no indication that politicians want to see other politicians compromise, and this misses the ultimate goal of addressing "issues important to the general welfare."

(C) is extreme. The individual parties are not merely interested in inter-party cooperation, and there's no suggestion that conflict is "constant."

(D) is not supported. Multi-party initiatives are described as groups working together. There's no indication of favoring any one party in particular or any one party wanting everyone to take its side.

(E) is a distortion. By joining forces with other parties, individual parties are becoming engaged in the agendas of other parties.

TAKEAWAY: Even when the question stem gets wordy, there's often a straightforward task being asked. Just take your time and dissect the stem carefully.

DavidTutorexamPAL · Answer

The answer is B.

A) "Our party would rather compromise on some of our issues and also see other parties compromise on their issues than run the risk of not having legislation that we propose pass."  This looks quite good at first glance: the proposal is indeed all about parties compromising to pass legislation. But look closer: the proposal is about parties proposing legislation  together,  while this answer discusses a party having its own private proposals passing. issues that are important only to the part will still probably fail to pass  
B) "Our party would rather give up a few minor points of ideology than risk having the issues important to our constituents not be addressed as a result of the government's inability to pass any new laws. "  exactly - the parties are indeed ceding minor ground, not to further their own private goals (as in A) but in order to help the general welfare  
C) "Our party would rather participate in an environment that fosters inter-party cooperation than persist in constant conflict with other parties."  This DOES match the general message of the passage, but it is too general and far-reaching: just because multi-party initiatives are becoming popular, this does not mean conflict is gone - nor that this is the parties goal 
D) "Our party would rather have other parties join in support of our legislation than join in supporting the proposals of other parties."  incorrect - the parties are joining together for common legislation - not all are joining one party (and if this were every party's goal, it would of course fall apart, since no one would cooperate with others)  
E) "Our party would rather have our proposals passed because they represent what is best for the welfare of our country than to become engaged in the agendas of other parties."  the first half of the sentence is great, the second is out of scope: the status quo was not being engaged with other parties agenda, it was the opposite - each party for itself

AKY13 · Answer

A) "Our party would rather compromise on some of our issues and also see other parties compromise on their issues than run the risk of not having legislation that we propose pass."

B) "Our party would rather give up a few minor points of ideology than risk having the issues important to our constituents not be addressed as a result of the government's inability to pass   any   new laws.

B is not the best & has the same flaw as A does.

In eliminating A, we are assuming that the proposals of party C are not good for general public.

Similarly, in choosing B, we are assuming that   ANY   proposal government passes are all good for general public.

Can somebody help.

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.

Multi-party initiatives are becoming increasingly popular among the me

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

Multi-party initiatives are becoming increasingly popular among the me

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