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.
Nov 2211:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Do RC/MSR passages scare you? e-GMAT is conducting a masterclass to help you learn – Learn effective reading strategies Tackle difficult RC & MSR with confidence Excel in timed test environment- Nov 23
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease. 
Nov 2510:00 AM EST
-11:00 AM EST
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.
Will2020
Current Student
Joined: 24 Jan 2017
Last visit: 04 Mar 2022
Posts: 135
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 1,120
Location: Brazil
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Strategy
Schools: Fuqua '24 (A)
GPA: 3.2
WE:Consulting (Healthcare/Pharmaceuticals)
Products:
30 Jun 2020, 16:47
Kudos
Bookmarks
MentorTutoring
MentorTutoring VeritasKarishma Regarding (D), if the AC was rephrased as: A political party's policies IS detrimental to the functioning of a government. Would it be right? If party's policies IS detrimental, then wouldn't be wise for politicians to be honest? Tks!
30 Jun 2020, 17:45
Kudos
Bookmarks
Will2020
Hello, Will2020. No, the proposed change (which would need to be are to agree with policies) would not affect the argument being made at all. The reasoning is based on insincerity and its role in achieving politically necessary compromises, not on political policies themselves. VeritasKarishma has done a fine job detailing why (D) misses the mark, and I asked a rhetorical question on the matter at the beginning of my earlier response on (D) as well. You have to be careful in CR questions to follow the linear logic of the passage and choose an answer that falls in line with that reasoning. Otherwise, you will find a way to justify just about any answer, and then CR will be nothing more than a guessing game.
- Andrew
15 Jan 2021, 00:09
Kudos
Bookmarks
Voters commonly condemn politicians for being insincere, but politicians often must disguise their true feelings when they make public statements. If they expressed their honest views—about, say, their party's policies—then achieving politically necessary compromises would be much more difficult. Clearly, the very insincerity that people decry shows that our government is functioning well.
P: Voters condemn politicians for being insecure
P: But, politicians must disguise their true feelings when making public statements
P: Achieving politically necessary compromises would be difficult if they were honest
C: Politician’s insincerity is a marker of a well functioning government
First, it’s not entirely clear what ‘political compromises’ even means. Anyway, there seems to be some fallacious reasoning going on here. Usually when somebody is dishonest, it’s a sign that things are going bad/negative. So the fact that the author concludes that the government is functioning well seems to be a bit ominuous. There must be some sort of assumption going on here that bridges the gap.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines this reasoning?
(A) Achieving political compromises is not all that is necessary for the proper functioning of a government.
Correct. It’s perfectly reasonable to postulate that even if there were compromises, that other factors could negatively affect the government.
(B) Some political compromises are not in the best long-term interest of the government.
I would dissect this using time. The point in the conclusion is that the insincerity currently demonstrated by politicians shows that the government IS functioning well right now. Whether certain compromises affect the LONG-TERM interest is inconsequential to the argument.
(C) Voters often judge politicians by criteria other than the sincerity with which they express their views.
This is plausible and related to the topic of the argument, but really it has no impact on it.
(D) A political party's policies could turn out to be detrimental to the functioning of a government.
Again this is definitely plausible and there is substantial evidence of this in reality, but it doesn’t weaken the claim that politician’s insincerity is indicative of a well-functioning government.
(E) Some of the public statements made by politicians about their party's policies could in fact be sincere.
Makes sense, but this choice doesn’t do the greatest job of linking the ideas together in the passage.
P: Voters condemn politicians for being insecure
P: But, politicians must disguise their true feelings when making public statements
P: Achieving politically necessary compromises would be difficult if they were honest
C: Politician’s insincerity is a marker of a well functioning government
First, it’s not entirely clear what ‘political compromises’ even means. Anyway, there seems to be some fallacious reasoning going on here. Usually when somebody is dishonest, it’s a sign that things are going bad/negative. So the fact that the author concludes that the government is functioning well seems to be a bit ominuous. There must be some sort of assumption going on here that bridges the gap.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines this reasoning?
(A) Achieving political compromises is not all that is necessary for the proper functioning of a government.
Correct. It’s perfectly reasonable to postulate that even if there were compromises, that other factors could negatively affect the government.
(B) Some political compromises are not in the best long-term interest of the government.
I would dissect this using time. The point in the conclusion is that the insincerity currently demonstrated by politicians shows that the government IS functioning well right now. Whether certain compromises affect the LONG-TERM interest is inconsequential to the argument.
(C) Voters often judge politicians by criteria other than the sincerity with which they express their views.
This is plausible and related to the topic of the argument, but really it has no impact on it.
(D) A political party's policies could turn out to be detrimental to the functioning of a government.
Again this is definitely plausible and there is substantial evidence of this in reality, but it doesn’t weaken the claim that politician’s insincerity is indicative of a well-functioning government.
(E) Some of the public statements made by politicians about their party's policies could in fact be sincere.
Makes sense, but this choice doesn’t do the greatest job of linking the ideas together in the passage.
If you need to go through as many steps in a logical progression as you did in your explanation (and especially if your explanation includes the word "probably"), I can all but assure you that you've got the wrong answer choice. GMAC asks us to follow logical progressions, but keep in mind that with each step along the path (unless the steps are rock solid), the path gets a little shakier. Too many steps ends up with a very shaky path, and that's not what GMAC is after.
