Last visit was: 19 Jun 2024, 13:45 It is currently 19 Jun 2024, 13:45
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
SORT BY:
Date
Tags:
Difficulty: 605-655 Level,    Weaken,                               
Show Tags
Hide Tags
User avatar
Intern
Intern
Joined: 30 Oct 2013
Posts: 25
Own Kudos [?]: 2829 [524]
Given Kudos: 15
Send PM
Most Helpful Reply
Tutor
Joined: 22 Oct 2012
Status:Private GMAT Tutor
Posts: 366
Own Kudos [?]: 2418 [314]
Given Kudos: 138
Location: India
Concentration: Economics, Finance
Schools: IIMA (A)
GMAT Focus 1:
735 Q90 V85 DI85
GMAT Focus 2:
735 Q90 V85 DI85
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V47
GRE 1: Q170 V168
Send PM
Tutor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 14968
Own Kudos [?]: 66054 [30]
Given Kudos: 435
Location: Pune, India
Send PM
GMAT Club Legend
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 03 Oct 2013
Affiliations: CrackVerbal
Posts: 4938
Own Kudos [?]: 7741 [5]
Given Kudos: 218
Location: India
Send PM
Re: Voters commonly condemn politicians for being insincere, but politicia [#permalink]
3
Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Quote:
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.


The right answer here should be A. Since this is a "weaken the conclusion" question, we must first identify exactly what that conclusion within the argument is. In this case it is that 'insincerity helps the government to function well'. Since we're trying to weaken this conclusion, we want something which, if true, suggests that insincerity does NOT actually help.

Generally, an assumption that weakens the conclusion will do so by challenging the information given, or by providing new information, and we wanna be on the lookout for both. The info that we have is that insincerity helps achieve political compromises, hence it is a good thing. So it is possible that the right answer attacks this point.

A - If achieving political compromises is not important, then it defeats the very point that insincerity is helpful because the thing it helps does not actually make the government function properly. CORRECT

B - Even if *some* compromises are not in the best long term interest, it still suggests that achieving them helps the govt to function. OUT

C - It does not matter whether voters look for sincerity or not, because the conclusion is about whether it helps the government to function or not. OUT

D - Maybe a political party's decisions end up being bad for the govt, but it does not explain how sincerity or lack of sincerity might affect this, so it is unrelated to the conclusion. OUT

E - If some statements are actually sincere, this becomes even more irrelevant, because we wanna know what the impact of sincerity is. This is akin to weakening the premise, and that is not something that you should ever look to do in a CR question. OUT

- Matoo
General Discussion
User avatar
Manager
Manager
Joined: 21 Jun 2014
Posts: 81
Own Kudos [?]: 363 [13]
Given Kudos: 59
Location: United States
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
GMAT 1: 630 Q45 V31
GPA: 3.4
WE:Engineering (Computer Software)
Send PM
Re: Voters commonly condemn politicians for being insincere, but politicia [#permalink]
9
Kudos
4
Bookmarks
Conclusion:Clearly, the very insincerity that people decry shows that our government is functioning well.
The right answer will point out how political compromise are not good for governance. Option A and B both talk about the impact of political compromise on government .
However B says :"B. Some political compromises are not in the best long-term interest of the government."It implies that there are political compromises which are in the best interest of the government.This rules out B .

Option A is the right answer.
avatar
Intern
Intern
Joined: 05 Dec 2014
Posts: 20
Own Kudos [?]: 36 [4]
Given Kudos: 23
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Strategy
GMAT 1: 610 Q50 V23
GPA: 3.82
WE:Corporate Finance (Consulting)
Send PM
Re: Voters commonly condemn politicians for being insincere, but politicia [#permalink]
2
Kudos
2
Bookmarks
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.


I am currently using the MGMAT CR guide, and am working only on improving strengthen, weaken and assumption questions. "training your ear" suggested by bb and knowing "characteristics of answers" by Stacey K from Manhattan are something I am setting out to do. Although I am finding Kaplan's some questions a little off, but their other questions seems okay.

Anyways, Premises: Candidates are often insincere because they don't want to voice their honest opinions as this may hamper any political collaborations with those parties in the future.

Conclusion: this insincerity shows that our govt is working fine.

A. Achieving political compromises is not all that is necessary for the proper functioning of a government. If achieving political collaborations isnt important, the this insincerity must be to hide something more crucial. Hence conclusion is weakened as this insincerity is not to hide any fallacies of other parties in fear of hampering future collaborations.

Hence Ans: A
avatar
Intern
Intern
Joined: 13 Sep 2015
Posts: 11
Own Kudos [?]: 31 [10]
Given Kudos: 239
Send PM
Re: Voters commonly condemn politicians for being insincere, but politicia [#permalink]
8
Kudos
2
Bookmarks
TL: "Not being honest helps achieve politically necessary compromises, hence dishonesty in statements is a sign that Govt is functioning well"

The main link is "politically necessary compromises" and "Govt functioning well"

A. "politically necessary compromises are not necessary for functioning of Govt" delinking politically necessary compromises from Functioning of govt, hence weakens the argument.


B. is out because it speaks of some compromises, link is weak. Maybe others or most compromises are better in the long term

C. out of scope and has nothing to do with the conclusion or main thrust of the argument

D. does not mention politically necessary compromises or dishonesty of statements...out of scope

E. some statements could be sincere. So what...has nothing to do with the link identified above between compromises and govt funcitoning well.

A is the right answer
Board of Directors
Joined: 17 Jul 2014
Posts: 2148
Own Kudos [?]: 1183 [8]
Given Kudos: 236
Location: United States (IL)
Concentration: Finance, Economics
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V30
GPA: 3.92
WE:General Management (Transportation)
Send PM
Re: Voters commonly condemn politicians for being insincere, but politicia [#permalink]
6
Kudos
1
Bookmarks
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.


we need to weaken the conclusion.
the conclusion is - insincerity of politicians - gvt functions well.
the conclusion is supported by the premise that: politicians lie because by doing so, they achieve politically necessary compromises.

the assumption here is that the compromises are actually helping the gvt function 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.
this one negates the assumption. this is a clear weakener, as the conclusion no longer stands true.

B. Some political compromises are not in the best long-term interest of the government.
well, we are not interested in long term interests. we need to show that being insincere does not help gvt function well.

C. Voters often judge politicians by criteria other than the sincerity with which they express their views.
irrelevant to the conclusion.

D. A political party's policies could turn out to be detrimental to the functioning of a government.
well, it might be true, but doesn't affect the conclusion at all.

E. Some of the public statements made by politicians about their party's policies could in fact be sincere.
irrelevant.
Intern
Intern
Joined: 14 May 2015
Posts: 6
Own Kudos [?]: 7 [0]
Given Kudos: 145
Send PM
Re: Voters commonly condemn politicians for being insincere, but politicia [#permalink]
how can option d can be eliminated?
I was sure that answer was A but at the same time couldn't rule out option D
Board of Directors
Joined: 11 Jun 2011
Status:QA & VA Forum Moderator
Posts: 6055
Own Kudos [?]: 4747 [3]
Given Kudos: 463
Location: India
GPA: 3.5
WE:Business Development (Commercial Banking)
Send PM
Re: Voters commonly condemn politicians for being insincere, but politicia [#permalink]
3
Kudos
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.

vlakhanpal14 wrote:
how can option d can be eliminated?
I was sure that answer was A but at the same time couldn't rule out option D


Attachment:
Capture.PNG
Capture.PNG [ 19.97 KiB | Viewed 108672 times ]


We are talking about the decisions of the politicians and their compromises , from where does Government come in ?

Political Parties can play 2 roles -

1. Form the Government
2. Form the Opposition to the various houses of the Government


Political Party may be Independent of the Government and as such there is a flaw (Gap) in the reasoning.

Option (A) very elegantly touches on this point perfectly, whereas in point (D) we have an element of doubt , it can be true...

Hence IMHO (A) is the best answer for this question...
Intern
Intern
Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 40
Own Kudos [?]: 9 [0]
Given Kudos: 243
GMAT Date: 11-01-2012
Send PM
Re: Voters commonly condemn politicians for being insincere, but politicia [#permalink]
mikemcgarry I really don't get how is d out of scope... If the politician is not sincere about party policies.. bad policies may be implemented clearly not helping in functioning of government.. why is it so out of scope..?? a I understand hits the pont but so does d...

Posted from my mobile device
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4482
Own Kudos [?]: 28761 [4]
Given Kudos: 130
Re: Voters commonly condemn politicians for being insincere, but politicia [#permalink]
1
Kudos
3
Bookmarks
Expert Reply
deependra1234 wrote:
mikemcgarry I really don't get how is d out of scope... If the politician is not sincere about party policies.. bad policies may be implemented clearly not helping in functioning of government.. why is it so out of scope..?? a I understand hits the pont but so does d...

Dear deependra1234,

I'm happy to respond. :-)

Here's the prompt argument:
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.

Think about this logic carefully. The speaker is saying that the politician must be insincere and support the party platform, not because this party policies should be implemented as stated by the party, but instead, because everyone supporting the party will make it easier for the party to compromise, presumably with other parties. (In the real world, I profoundly disagree with this logic, but here, this is evidence, so we have to stick with it.)

Now, look at (D):
A political party's policies could turn out to be detrimental to the functioning of a government.
This is out-of-scope precisely because what would happen if the single party's positions were implement is entirely irrelevant to the scenario in the prompt. We know that all the politicians of the party who verbally support the party policy, regardless of whether they really believe it, will have to sit down to compromise with the other party (or other parties), and what will be implemented is this compromise. It's those compromises that (according to the argument) are good for the government. This is precisely what (A) says.

Does all this make sense?
Mike :-)
Intern
Intern
Joined: 29 Sep 2016
Posts: 5
Own Kudos [?]: 12 [1]
Given Kudos: 47
Send PM
Re: Voters commonly condemn politicians for being insincere, but politicia [#permalink]
1
Bookmarks
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.
Intern
Intern
Joined: 22 Jan 2018
Posts: 38
Own Kudos [?]: 6 [1]
Given Kudos: 12
Send PM
Re: Voters commonly condemn politicians for being insincere, but politicia [#permalink]
1
Kudos
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?
Tutor
Joined: 22 Oct 2012
Status:Private GMAT Tutor
Posts: 366
Own Kudos [?]: 2418 [5]
Given Kudos: 138
Location: India
Concentration: Economics, Finance
Schools: IIMA (A)
GMAT Focus 1:
735 Q90 V85 DI85
GMAT Focus 2:
735 Q90 V85 DI85
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V47
GRE 1: Q170 V168
Send PM
Re: Voters commonly condemn politicians for being insincere, but politicia [#permalink]
3
Kudos
2
Bookmarks
Expert Reply
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
Joined: 05 Oct 2017
Posts: 87
Own Kudos [?]: 138 [1]
Given Kudos: 103
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, International Business
GMAT 1: 660 Q48 V33
GMAT 2: 700 Q49 V35 (Online)
GPA: 4
WE:Analyst (Energy and Utilities)
Send PM
Re: Voters commonly condemn politicians for being insincere, but politicia [#permalink]
1
Kudos
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
Joined: 31 Jan 2019
Posts: 37
Own Kudos [?]: 24 [1]
Given Kudos: 139
Location: India
GMAT 1: 630 Q47 V30
GPA: 4
Send PM
Re: Voters commonly condemn politicians for being insincere, but politicia [#permalink]
1
Kudos
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
Joined: 31 Jan 2019
Posts: 37
Own Kudos [?]: 24 [2]
Given Kudos: 139
Location: India
GMAT 1: 630 Q47 V30
GPA: 4
Send PM
Re: Voters commonly condemn politicians for being insincere, but politicia [#permalink]
1
Kudos
1
Bookmarks
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
Director
Director
Joined: 03 Mar 2017
Posts: 584
Own Kudos [?]: 418 [0]
Given Kudos: 596
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Technology
Send PM
Re: Voters commonly condemn politicians for being insincere, but politicia [#permalink]
GMATNinja VeritasKarishma MentorTutoring generis

Am not able to eliminate option D. Please help
Volunteer Expert
Joined: 16 May 2019
Posts: 3511
Own Kudos [?]: 6940 [2]
Given Kudos: 500
Re: Voters commonly condemn politicians for being insincere, but politicia [#permalink]
2
Kudos
Expert Reply
warrior1991 wrote:
GMATNinja VeritasKarishma MentorTutoring generis

Am not able to eliminate option D. Please help

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

Quote:
the very insincerity that people decry shows that our government is functioning well

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


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
GMAT Club Bot
Re: Voters commonly condemn politicians for being insincere, but politicia [#permalink]
 1   2   3   
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6954 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
238 posts
CR Forum Moderator
821 posts