Voters commonly condemn politicians for being insincere, but politicia

Hello, warrior1991. In my mind, option (D) can easily be eliminated with a careful reading of the conclusion and a quick comparison.



Since when are insincerity and policies the same thing? The former has to do with intent, while the latter has more to do with a credo. Furthermore, the could-be-true condition of (D) is a trap. If something could turn out to be detrimental, then it also could not. The verb tense shows uncertainty. In short, choice (D) does nothing to weaken the argument, since it broaches a separate concern and hinges upon a not-necessarily-true outcome. If it helps, you could reframe the conclusion using the information from the passage:

the very insincerity that people decry, insincerity that politicians must use to achieve politically necessary compromises, shows that our government is functioning well

I hope you will agree that the content of political policies has nothing to do with the above argument. If you have further questions, though, feel free to ask. Thank you for thinking to tag me.

- Andrew

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.

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.

Seems the question is giving trouble to many so here are my views on it.

Voters commonly condemn politicians for being insincere,
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.

Conclusion: Clearly, the very insincerity that people decry shows that our government is functioning well.

The argument links 'insincerity' to 'politically necessary compromises' to 'government is functioning well'. We need to undermine this reasoning.

(A) Achieving political compromises is not all that is necessary for the proper functioning of a government.

Correct. This says that "political compromises" does not lead to "proper functioning". There are other things required too. So we cannot conclude that the govt is functioning well only because it achieves political compromises.

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

"Long term interest of the govt" is not relevant to our argument.

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

How voters judge politicians is irrelevant.

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

Note that what the political party's policies are and how they impact the functioning of the govt is irrelevant to us. We are saying that "political compromises" lead to a well functioning govt. The argument mentions "political policies" only as an example - if politicians expressed their honest views about say political policies, political compromise may not be achieved. Actually the argument links "honesty of politicians" to "political compromise" to "functioning of a government" and that is what we need to worry about.

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

This just says that politicians are not "always dishonest".

Answer (A)

I am not sure but isn't D a strengthener here because we are saying that policies could be detrimental to the functioning of govt (probably because they cannot get compromise); so they must not be honest about it all the more because if they are detrimental and they are being honest about it, then definitely they will not get the necessary compromise.

Also I am bad with politics and I do not understand how this is working- which compromise is being referred to? Who will compromise with whom? How will any compromise be beneficial to anyone? How will being honest/ dishonest about it lead to any compromise? Why does member of A political party have to express honest opinions about them? MartyTargetTestPrep GMATNinja KarishmaB ThatDudeKnows avigutman

Focus on the keywords or intent of the conclusion:

Conclusion: A is the only way B works.
What will weaken it? If you say that B can work in another way C too.
We are not saying that A is not the way. We are saying that A is not the only way.

Conclusion: A is sufficient to show B.
What will weaken it? B needs other things too.
We are saying that A is not sufficient. It may be necessary but it is not sufficient.

Conclusion here: Insincerity shows that our government is functioning well.
You can weaken it by saying that just insincerity does not show that our Govt is functioning well. You need other things too.

Attempt # 1
,,,,
Conclusion - political compromise is needed for good functioning of government.

Attempt # 2
,,,,
Conclusion - political compromise is a must for good governance

Attempt # 3
,,,,
Conclusion - if good governance is to occur, political compromises have to be made

Attempt # 4
,,,,
Conclusion - without political compromise, good governance cannot be achieved.

(A-original) Achieving political compromises is not all that is necessary for the proper functioning of a government.

(A-variant) Achieving political compromises is not all that is necessary for the proper functioning of a government.

Hi avigutman - what if (A) was saying this instead



I believe (A-variant) too would weaken the argument.

If Achieving political compromises is NOT NECESSARY for the proper functioning of a government - i think that would weaken the conclusion

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.