by: Dexter43
10 mins
by: Nikhil
17 mins
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.
Sep 1507:00 PM EDT
-09:00 PM EST
Elite scores are possible when you enroll in a powerful GMAT course, taught live online + 6 months access to TTP OnDemand video courses included! Class starts Tues/Thurs Sept. 15, 2026 - Nov. 15, 2027, 7:00pm-9:00pm EST
Sep 2107:00 PM EDT
-10:00 PM EDT
Boost your GMAT score in less than one month in a live online class + 6 months access to TTP OnDemand video courses included! Class starts Mon, Tues, Wed, Thur, Fri Sept. 21, 2026 - Oct. 9, 2027, 7:00pm-10:00pm EST
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
55%
(hard)
Question Stats:
60% (01:49) correct
40%
(02:02)
wrong
based on 453
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Studies of voting patterns in the town of Glen Isle have shown that the single most effective way for politicians to win votes is to purchase expensive television advertising. A candidate challenging the incumbent for a seat on the town council has argued that the importance of television advertising inherently favors incumbents and therefore that political television advertising should be banned in Glen Isle.
The challenger's conclusion logically depends on which of the following assumptions?
(A) Incumbents have won eighty percent of the elections in Glen Isle in the last 10 years.
(B) Some incumbent candidates in Glen Isle have been able to win votes by organizing frequent political rallies.
(C) Not all challengers in Glen Isle are skilled political fundraisers.
(D) Glen Isle incumbents have access to financial support in excess of that available to challengers.
(E) Banning political television advertising is not unconstitutional.
_________________
The challenger's conclusion logically depends on which of the following assumptions?
(A) Incumbents have won eighty percent of the elections in Glen Isle in the last 10 years.
(B) Some incumbent candidates in Glen Isle have been able to win votes by organizing frequent political rallies.
(C) Not all challengers in Glen Isle are skilled political fundraisers.
(D) Glen Isle incumbents have access to financial support in excess of that available to challengers.
(E) Banning political television advertising is not unconstitutional.
_________________
New to the GMAT Club?
- • Questions: Question Bank | Bunuel's Signature Collection
• Tests: GMAT Club Tests | Forum Quiz
• Guides: Quantitative | Critical Reasoning | Reading Comprehension | Ultimate Quant Guide | All You Need for Quant
• Rules: Quantitative | Verbal
A should be the answer. Importance of television advertising inherently favors incumbents. Incumbents won majority elections. Hence television advertising should be banned.
Only option E is close. But it's out of scope.
Posted from my mobile device
Only option E is close. But it's out of scope.
Posted from my mobile device
Shwarma
Joined: 10 Sep 2023
Last visit: 25 May 2025
Posts: 173
Location: India
Schools: Tepper '27 Ross '27 Foster '27 Kellogg
GMAT Focus 1: 655 Q82 V83 DI84 
GPA: 4
Products:
IMO it should be
Option D
Conclusion: Challenger wants to ban TV ads--> coz it favors the incumbent-> coz they can buy up all prime ad space--> historically more ad space > chance of winning
The assumption is that: Challenger cannot buy this prime time hence seeking the ban.
Option A: Incumbents have 8/10 time- which is why they are incumbent, it doesn't explain if they can buy it more or not or if that is why they have won....
Negating it also doesn't challenge the conclusion.
Option D: Incumbents are better financially to do so, is negated-> incumbents also cannot buy the ads, so if neither can buy the ads.. what is the point of seeing the ban? Thus D is the option.
Option D
Conclusion: Challenger wants to ban TV ads--> coz it favors the incumbent-> coz they can buy up all prime ad space--> historically more ad space > chance of winning
The assumption is that: Challenger cannot buy this prime time hence seeking the ban.
Option A: Incumbents have 8/10 time- which is why they are incumbent, it doesn't explain if they can buy it more or not or if that is why they have won....
Negating it also doesn't challenge the conclusion.
Option D: Incumbents are better financially to do so, is negated-> incumbents also cannot buy the ads, so if neither can buy the ads.. what is the point of seeing the ban? Thus D is the option.
Shwarma
Joined: 10 Sep 2023
Last visit: 25 May 2025
Posts: 173
Location: India
Schools: Tepper '27 Ross '27 Foster '27 Kellogg
GMAT Focus 1: 655 Q82 V83 DI84
GPA: 4
Products:
sayan640
How is option D a weaker
I read it as: incumbents have more power to buy up ad space than the challenger… Isn’t that in support of the argument?
Posted from my mobile device
How is option D a weaker
I read it as: incumbents have more power to buy up ad space than the challenger… Isn’t that in support of the argument?
Posted from my mobile device
Posts: 91
I think answer is D
If we negate D, it can't be said "the importance of television advertising inherently favors incumbents"
In addition,
"Studies of voting patterns in the town of Glen Isle have shown that the single most effective way for politicians to win votes is to purchase expensive television advertising. "
'expensive television advertisng'
If we negate D, it can't be said "the importance of television advertising inherently favors incumbents"
In addition,
"Studies of voting patterns in the town of Glen Isle have shown that the single most effective way for politicians to win votes is to purchase expensive television advertising. "
'expensive television advertisng'
Moderator Note: sayan640 even though, negation -> weaken so it must be assumption
KarishmaB would you help? 
I am confused between A and D.
I am writing what I am thinking, PLEASE CORRECT ME if I have any flaws in my thinking.
background: Studies show that only way to win is to purchase TV ad.
TV ad favors incumbents (premise) therefore it should be banned (conclusion).
(A) Incumbents have won eighty percent of the elections in Glen Isle in the last 10 years.
---- (only way to win is to purchase ad and it favors the incumbents and if they have won 80% then they must be purchasing the ad (becoz that's the single most effective way), therefore it is a premise and supports the conclusion.
---- Let's negate the statement " Incumbents have won only 10% of the elections in last 10 years, may be last election" does it destroy the conclusion? (Not sure, can someone help me here????????)
(D) Glen Isle incumbents have access to financial support in excess of that available to challengers.
----- Hence it makes the premise stronger that it favors the incumbents and it should be banned.
-----Negate the statement: If they have the same money then TV ad will not favor anyone and should not be banned.
I am more inclined towards D
I am writing what I am thinking, PLEASE CORRECT ME if I have any flaws in my thinking.
background: Studies show that only way to win is to purchase TV ad.
TV ad favors incumbents (premise) therefore it should be banned (conclusion).
(A) Incumbents have won eighty percent of the elections in Glen Isle in the last 10 years.
---- (only way to win is to purchase ad and it favors the incumbents and if they have won 80% then they must be purchasing the ad (becoz that's the single most effective way), therefore it is a premise and supports the conclusion.
---- Let's negate the statement " Incumbents have won only 10% of the elections in last 10 years, may be last election" does it destroy the conclusion? (Not sure, can someone help me here????????)
(D) Glen Isle incumbents have access to financial support in excess of that available to challengers.
----- Hence it makes the premise stronger that it favors the incumbents and it should be banned.
-----Negate the statement: If they have the same money then TV ad will not favor anyone and should not be banned.
I am more inclined towards D
Scholar94
Joined: 16 Feb 2021
Last visit: 11 Sep 2026
Posts: 42
Status:I'm not afraid of hard work. I like it!
Location: Nigeria
Schools: Wharton '27
Schools: Wharton '27
Posts: 42
sayan640
First from my understanding of assumption questions type in gmat, the concept "out of scope" does not apply. And more than often the correct answer to assumption questions are not always mentioned directly in the argument
For option A, must it be the case that incumbent has won more than 80% of the election in the last 10 years for the conclusion of the challenger to be true? How about if incumbent has won it just 50% of the time? Only option E is closest to what need to be true for that conclusion to be true.
Scholar94
Joined: 16 Feb 2021
Last visit: 11 Sep 2026
Posts: 42
Status:I'm not afraid of hard work. I like it!
Location: Nigeria
Schools: Wharton '27
Schools: Wharton '27
Posts: 42
HarishD
I do not think negating option D destroy the conclusion of the argument either.
Posted from my mobile device
Bunuel
An assumption is required to be necessarily true for the conclusion to hold.
Challenger's Premise:
the importance of television advertising inherently favors incumbents
Challenger's Conclusion:
political television advertising should be banned in Glen Isle.
What needs to be necessarily true for the conclusion to hold?
(A) Incumbents have won eighty percent of the elections in Glen Isle in the last 10 years.
Does it need to be true for the conlcusion to hold? No. It has nothing to do with the conclusion. It only gives us further data to show that the importance of television advertising inherently favors incumbents.
(D) Glen Isle incumbents have access to financial support in excess of that available to challengers.
We do not need this to be true for the conclusion to hold.
It gives a possible reason why "the importance of television advertising inherently favors incumbents" but does this need to be the reason? No. What if challengers have more money but incumbents have influence such that they get priority when advertising slots are sold? So this option needn't even be the reason why the importance of television advertising inherently favors incumbents.
(E) Banning political television advertising is not unconstitutional.
Correct. When someone says, "Do A," what is the inherent assumption there? That A is not unconstitutional/illegal (we live in a civil society). Otherwise the challenger would not say so. If "A" were unconstitutional, then his conclusion would break. Then one cannot do A.
Answer (E) (Let me add here, "As per me" - The OA is yet to be revealed.)
_________________
-
Start FREE with selected GMAT/EA Content upon registration at anaprep.com
YouTube Channel: karishma.anaprep
Start FREE with selected GMAT/EA Content upon registration at anaprep.com
YouTube Channel: karishma.anaprep
Scholar94
Joined: 16 Feb 2021
Last visit: 11 Sep 2026
Posts: 42
Status:I'm not afraid of hard work. I like it!
Location: Nigeria
Schools: Wharton '27
Schools: Wharton '27
Posts: 42
KarishmaB
Exactly. What A does is, it slightly strengthen the conclusion and it is never an assumption that must be true for that conclusion to hold
Posted from my mobile device
Posts: 91
Updated on: 25 Apr 2024, 08:52
Originally posted by TOBEATHATPERSON on 25 Apr 2024, 01:01.
Last edited by TOBEATHATPERSON on 25 Apr 2024, 08:52, edited 2 times in total.
Last edited by TOBEATHATPERSON on 25 Apr 2024, 08:52, edited 2 times in total.
KarishmaB I think this is a flawed question...More over not an official one..So we can just let it be...I was a bit tensed initially..Normally my CR accuracy is very high ..My gmat is days away..Hope I will be able to surpass my previous 570...
Posted from my mobile device
KarishmaB
Posted from my mobile device
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Posts: 2,161
EDDIE98
Let's first take a look at the argument.
The conclusion is the following:
political television advertising should be banned in Glen Isle
The support for the conclusion is the following:
the importance of television advertising inherently favors incumbents
Now, here's (D):
(D) Glen Isle incumbents have access to financial support in excess of that available to challengers.
Notice that that argument does not require (D). After all, even if incumbents do NOT have access to more financial support, it could be that the importance of television advertising still somehow favors incumbents and that, therefore, political television advertising should be banned in Glen Isle.
After all, it could be television advertising favors incumbents for a reason not related to financial support.
So, (D) does not state a necessary assumption and is not a correct answer.
The answer that works best is (E), but (E) doesn't really work the way an assumption does in a GMAT CR question.
So, this question doesn't really work.
_________________
Perfect scoring coach with a history of helping test-takers achieve their goals
https://martymurraycoaching.com/
Contact me for a free consultation.
https://martymurraycoaching.com/
Contact me for a free consultation.
Posts: 24
KarishmaB
Hi the OA is D, but my thought process was same as yours and chose E
So if possible can you explain why E may be wrong?
Bunuel
KAPLAN OFFICIAL EXPLANATION
This is an Assumption question that asks for an assumption the challenger is making. The challenger concludes that political advertising on television should be banned because incumbents have an inherent advantage when it comes to purchasing such advertising, which has been shown to be the best way to attract voters.
If the challenger believes "advertising inherently favors incumbents" and the way to access advertising is by making an "expensive" purchase, the challenger must believe incumbents have some advantage in ability to pay for advertising.
(D) matches the prediction and is correct. If incumbents have more financial support than challengers, they would indeed have an advantage in purchasing advertising.
(A) and (B) are irrelevant. The incumbents in (A) may have won because they were better campaigners, or because voter preferred their positions. The incumbents in (B) may have won because voters liked their rallies, but in either choice, there is no information connecting those victories to television advertising.
(C) is irrelevant. The ability of some challengers to raise money is not the issue. The argument is concerned with the unfairness of the system, not the ability (or lack of it) of some challengers to function within that system.
(E) is not something that the challenger must believe for the conclusion to follow from the evidence. Even if the challenger believes that banning this advertising is unconstitutional, she may still think it should be done. Perhaps she doesn't think a ban would be challenged in court. Perhaps she believes the constitution should be amended!
TAKEAWAY: Be very clear on the evidence and conclusion of the argument, and stick to the connection between them. Irrelevant choices are quite common, and can be easily spotted by having a good paraphrase of the argument.
_________________
New to the GMAT Club?
- • Questions: Question Bank | Bunuel's Signature Collection
• Tests: GMAT Club Tests | Forum Quiz
• Guides: Quantitative | Critical Reasoning | Reading Comprehension | Ultimate Quant Guide | All You Need for Quant
• Rules: Quantitative | Verbal
Moderators:
Announcements
How to Tell If Your GMAT Prep Resources Are Actually Helping You
Subscribe to GMAT Club for New Podcast Episodes, Debriefs, & Insightful Sessions on GMAT Preparation
Subscribe to GMAT Club for New Podcast Episodes, Debriefs, & Insightful Sessions on GMAT Preparation
Tuck at Dartmouth
AI at Dartmouth Tuck: How the School Is Preparing Leaders for the Age of Artificial Intelligence
Inside the courses, research, and hands-on learning defining wise, decisive leadership in an AI-driven world.
Read More
Inside the courses, research, and hands-on learning defining wise, decisive leadership in an AI-driven world.
Read More
Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos
Success stories and strategies from high-scoring candidates.