GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

It is currently 25 Mar 2019, 07:49

Close

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

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Voters commonly condemn politicians for being insincere, but politicia

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

 
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 22 Jan 2018
Posts: 46
Voters commonly condemn politicians for being insincere, but politicia  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 Oct 2018, 01:07
ChiranjeevSingh wrote:
Similarly, option A doesn't mean achieving political compromises is not good for the functioning of a government.

Hello chiranjeev, we had to look for option that mentions that political compromises is "not" good for the functioning of a government.

As you mentioned, option A doesn't mean achieving political compromises is not good for the functioning of a government.

So, why we are choosing A?
Manager
Manager
User avatar
G
Status: Private GMAT Tutor
Joined: 22 Oct 2012
Posts: 126
Location: India
Concentration: Economics, Finance
Schools: IIMA (A)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V47
Premium Member
Re: Voters commonly condemn politicians for being insincere, but politicia  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 Oct 2018, 01:56
Top Contributor
Manukaran wrote:
we had to look for option that mentions that political compromises is "not" good for the functioning of a government.



No. We are not 'necessarily' looking for an option that says achieving political compromises is not good for the functioning of the government. However, if an option says so, it will also be correct. However, we don't 'need' an option to say that.

For example: Ram scored very well on GMAT. Ram's GMAT score shows that he is intelligent.

Now, the above argument can be definitely weakened by saying that a good GMAT score is a reflection of poor intelligence. However, we don't need an option to say that to weaken the argument. In other words, there are other ways to weaken the argument.

A statement that a GMAT score is not enough to prove one's intelligence also weakens the argument.

Makes sense?

- CJ
_________________
Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 05 Oct 2017
Posts: 72
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, International Business
Schools: ISB '21, IIMA , IIMC
GPA: 4
WE: Analyst (Energy and Utilities)
GMAT ToolKit User CAT Tests
Re: Voters commonly condemn politicians for being insincere, but politicia  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 Dec 2018, 03:23
thanhmaitran wrote:
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.

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.

(B) Some political compromises are not in the best long-term interest of the government.

(C) Voters often judge politicians by criteria other than the sincerity with which they express their views.

(D) A political party's policies could turn out to be detrimental to the functioning of a government.

(E) Some of the public statements made by politicians about their party's policies could in fact be sincere.




What additional information will make me less likely to believe in the conclusion that:-

Since people are decrying the insincerity ,our government must be functioning well.

Given :- 1) Politicians must disguise their true feelings when they make any political statement.
2) Because if they expressed true feelings making political compromises will be more difficult.

Thinking process : The author states that the government is functioning well because people are decrying the insincerity. So the government must be disguising their true feelings.
Here the author assumes that since the government is functioning well , it is making political compromises.

Now a weakener will be in the lines that negates this assumption i.e political compromises is not necessary for proper functioning of the government.

Only option A) is in the line with our weakener.
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 31 Jan 2019
Posts: 32
Location: India
Schools: Kellogg '21, Ross '21
GMAT 1: 680 Q48 V35
GPA: 4
Voters commonly condemn politicians for being insincere, but politicia  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 11 Feb 2019, 01:05
valepm wrote:
ChiranjeevSingh wrote:
thanhmaitran wrote:
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.

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.
B. Some political compromises are not in the best long-term interest of the government.
C. Voters often judge politicians by criteria other than the sincerity with which they express their views.
D. A political party's policies could turn out to be detrimental to the functioning of a government.
E. Some of the public statements made by politicians about their party's policies could in fact be sincere.


After going through all the posts on this thread, I can see that while many of us have gotten the answer right, hardly anyone of us has gotten it right for the right reasons.

The crux of the argument is this: Since achieving politically necessary compromises would be much more difficult with honest views than with insincerity, the insincerity of the politicians shows that our govt is functioning well.

The reason given on this thread for accepting option A is that the option shows that achieving political compromises does not help in the proper functioning of a government. Or it delinks political compromises from the functioning of the government.

Neither of these reasons is correct.

If I tell you that achieving 760 on GMAT is not all that is necessary for getting admission in Harvard (which, as you know is true since there are many other requirements), does it mean that 760 on GMAT doesn't help in getting admission in Harvard? Or does it mean that 760 on GMAT is not linked to admission to Harvard?

The answer to both the questions is No. Right?

Just that one thing is not the "only" necessary requirement doesn't mean that it is not even one of the requirements. Right?

Similarly, option A doesn't mean achieving political compromises is not good for the functioning of a government.

Rather, if I change the conclusion to "the very insincerity that people decry is good for the functioning of the government", option A will become incorrect, for the abovementioned reasons.

The reason option A is correct is that the conclusion says that the insincerity "shows" that the government is functioning well.

It's like saying "your 760 on GMAT shows that you have gotten into Harvard".

Now, if someone tells me that 760 on GMAT is not the only requirement for Harvard, my above statement will be weakened.

Right?

Similarly, since option A says that achieving political compromises is not the only requirement for the proper functioning of the government, it means that even if we achieve political compromises, other requirements may not be met, and thus, the government may still not be functioning well. Therefore, just by knowing that we have probably achieved political compromises, we cannot say that the government is functioning well.

Does it make sense?

Option B is wrong because it says "some" political compromises are not in the best long-term interest of the government. One major reason for rejecting option B is that "some" means "at least one". So, essentially option B says that at least one political compromise is not in the.... Do we really need all political compromises to be in the "best long-term interests" of the government?

No. Right?

Secondly, it talks about "political compromises" in general, not specifically "necessary political compromises", as talked about in the argument. It could be that some political compromises are not good, but probably none of them is necessary. Probably, all necessary compromises are actually good for the government. Right?

Therefore, option B doesn't weaken the argument.

Option D says "A political party's policies could turn out to be detrimental to the functioning of a government". This option uses "could", which means, as in option B, that some policies could be detrimental to the functioning of a government. Now, even if some of the policies are detrimental to the functioning of the government, does it mean that politicians should express honestly?

No. Because the reasoning of the argument stands as is. If they express honestly, achieving politically "necessary" compromises would be much more difficult.

Therefore, even if option D is true, the reasoning of the argument stands as is.

Thus, option D doesn't weaken the argument and is incorrect.



I completely agree. However, I saw it in a different light. We have to weaken the argument (this does not mean the conclusion only, some people only want to weaken the conclusion but it extremely important to understand how the author came to that conclusion (the premise) in order to weaken it).

The conclusion is simple: Insincerity shows that the government is functioning well.
Why? (Premise). Because politicians are insincere to achieve political compromises.

In short words the author's argument is that Politicians are insincere to achieve compromise, and achieving compromise means government functioning well. Basically stating that all that is needed to make a government function well is to achieve compromise. (The reason why political lie)

How do we weaken the argument (conclusion + supporting premise) = We need to show the author that a government does not function well only by achieving compromises. And answer A does just that.



valepm

Argument:

Insincerity of Politicians shows -------> Govt Functioning well

Pre-Thinking: A new Piece of info that delinks the Insincerity to the functioning of the govt (Weakener)

POE:

A) Acc to the author Insincerity leads to achieving necessary political compromises and leads Govt. to function well, If 'Politically necessary compromises' are not at all necessary then it means Gvt can function well without this insincerity thereby weakening the argument - Correct
B) Some may be Not but at the same time Others may be in the best Interest, indicating that Politically compromises are Necessary , thereby strengthening the argument
Also, Interests is not the same as functioning .
C) Out of scope , this has no brearing on the functioning of the government
D)This is a strengthener as the author mentions if honest about party policies then political compromises are tough ,thereby strengthening the argument that Honesty is detremental to functiong and that insincerity shows govt. functioning well
E) 'Some' is not representative therefore out of scope. and doesn't affect the overall trend
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 31 Jan 2019
Posts: 32
Location: India
Schools: Kellogg '21, Ross '21
GMAT 1: 680 Q48 V35
GPA: 4
Re: Voters commonly condemn politicians for being insincere, but politicia  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 11 Feb 2019, 01:15
Argument:

Insincerity of Politicians shows -------> Govt Functioning well

Pre-Thinking: A new Piece of info that delinks the Insincerity to the functioning of the govt (Weakener)

POE:

A) Acc to the author Insincerity leads to achieving necessary political compromises and leads Govt. to function well, If 'Politically necessary compromises' are not at all necessary then it means Gvt can function well without this insincerity thereby weakening the argument - Correct
B) Some may be Not but at the same time Others may be in the best Interest, indicating that Politically compromises are Necessary , thereby strengthening the argument
Also, Interests is not the same as functioning .
C) Out of scope , this has no brearing on the functioning of the government
D)This is a strengthener as the author mentions if honest about party policies then political compromises are tough ,thereby strengthening the argument that Honesty is detremental to functiong and that insincerity shows govt. functioning well
E) 'Some' is not representative therefore out of scope. and doesn't affect the overall trend
GMAT Club Bot
Re: Voters commonly condemn politicians for being insincere, but politicia   [#permalink] 11 Feb 2019, 01:15

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 25 posts ] 

Display posts from previous: Sort by

Voters commonly condemn politicians for being insincere, but politicia

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


Copyright

GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.