Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases https://gmatclub.com/AppTrack
GMAT Club

 It is currently 24 Mar 2017, 21:17

### 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

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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# When politicians resort to personal attacks, many

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

BSchool Forum Moderator
Joined: 02 Oct 2009
Posts: 604
GMAT 1: 530 Q47 V17
GMAT 2: 710 Q50 V36
Followers: 37

Kudos [?]: 325 [1] , given: 411

When politicians resort to personal attacks, many [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 May 2010, 07:30
1
KUDOS
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

26% (02:13) correct 74% (01:22) wrong based on 41 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

When politicians resort to personal attacks, many editorialists criticize these attacks but most voters pay them scant attention. Everyone knows such attacks will end after election day, and politicians can be excused for mudslinging. Political commentators, however, cannot be. Political commentators should be engaged in sustained and serious debate about ideas and policies. In such a context personal attacks on opponents serve not to beat those opponents but to cut off the debate.

Which of the following most accurately states the main point of the argument?

(A) Personal attacks on opponents serve a useful purpose for politicians.
(B) Political commentators should not resort to personal attacks on their opponents.
(C) Editorialists are right to criticize politicians who resort to personal attacks on their opponents.
(D) The purpose of serious debate about ideas and policies is to counteract the effect of personal attacks by politicians.
(E) Voters should be concerned about the personal attacks politicians make on each other.
If you have any questions
New!
Senior Manager
Joined: 01 Feb 2010
Posts: 265
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 57 [0], given: 2

### Show Tags

13 May 2010, 08:42
RaviChandra wrote:
When politicians resort to personal attacks, many editorialists criticize these attacks but most voters pay them scant attention. Everyone knows such attacks will end after election day, and politicians can be excused for mudslinging. Political commentators, however, cannot be. Political commentators should be engaged in sustained and serious debate about ideas and policies. In such a context personal attacks on opponents serve not to beat those opponents but to cut off the debate.

Which of the following most accurately states the main point of the argument?

(A) Personal attacks on opponents serve a useful purpose for politicians.
(B) Political commentators should not resort to personal attacks on their opponents.
(C) Editorialists are right to criticize politicians who resort to personal attacks on their opponents.
(D) The purpose of serious debate about ideas and policies is to counteract the effect of personal attacks by politicians.
(E) Voters should be concerned about the personal attacks politicians make on each other.

I would go with D.
Debate seems to be main point of concern for the author in passage and D describes purpose of Debate over personal attacks.
Director
Joined: 01 Apr 2008
Posts: 896
Name: Ronak Amin
Schools: IIM Lucknow (IPMX) - Class of 2014
Followers: 29

Kudos [?]: 671 [0], given: 18

### Show Tags

13 May 2010, 08:57
I go with B.
OA?
SVP
Joined: 17 Feb 2010
Posts: 1549
Followers: 19

Kudos [?]: 609 [0], given: 6

### Show Tags

13 May 2010, 12:46
it is between B and D.

i pick (D) and would also appreciate if someone can explain the premise in simple words.
Senior Manager
Joined: 24 Jul 2009
Posts: 296
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 139 [1] , given: 0

### Show Tags

13 May 2010, 14:20
1
KUDOS
RaviChandra wrote:
When politicians resort to personal attacks, many editorialists criticize these attacks but most voters pay them scant attention. Everyone knows such attacks will end after election day, and politicians can be excused for mudslinging. Political commentators, however, cannot be. Political commentators should be engaged in sustained and serious debate about ideas and policies. In such a context personal attacks on opponents serve not to beat those opponents but to cut off the debate.

Which of the following most accurately states the main point of the argument?

(A) Personal attacks on opponents serve a useful purpose for politicians.
(B) Political commentators should not resort to personal attacks on their opponents.
(C) Editorialists are right to criticize politicians who resort to personal attacks on their opponents.
(D) The purpose of serious debate about ideas and policies is to counteract the effect of personal attacks by politicians.
(E) Voters should be concerned about the personal attacks politicians make on each other.

IMHO B

If we simplify the argument>>>>>> When X do Z..it's OK, HOWEVER, Y should not do Z.
So, Conclusion : Y should not do Z. >>>>> Political commentators cannot be excused for mudslinging.

BSchool Forum Moderator
Joined: 02 Oct 2009
Posts: 604
GMAT 1: 530 Q47 V17
GMAT 2: 710 Q50 V36
Followers: 37

Kudos [?]: 325 [0], given: 411

### Show Tags

13 May 2010, 18:56
[Reveal] Spoiler:
OA:B
Manager
Joined: 16 Feb 2010
Posts: 187
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 31 [0], given: 15

### Show Tags

15 May 2010, 05:11
yup B must be the answer
Director
Joined: 25 Aug 2007
Posts: 951
WE 1: 3.5 yrs IT
WE 2: 2.5 yrs Retail chain
Followers: 77

Kudos [?]: 1290 [0], given: 40

### Show Tags

15 May 2010, 07:11
Good question. It desrves to be in LSAT category.

RaviChandra wrote:
When politicians resort to personal attacks, many editorialists criticize these attacks but most voters pay them scant attention. Everyone knows such attacks will end after election day, and politicians can be excused for mudslinging. Political commentators, however, cannot be. Political commentators should be engaged in sustained and serious debate about ideas and policies. In such a context personal attacks on opponents serve not to beat those opponents but to cut off the debate.

Which of the following most accurately states the main point of the argument?

(A) Personal attacks on opponents serve a useful purpose for politicians.
(B) Political commentators should not resort to personal attacks on their opponents.
(C) Editorialists are right to criticize politicians who resort to personal attacks on their opponents.
(D) The purpose of serious debate about ideas and policies is to counteract the effect of personal attacks by politicians.
(E) Voters should be concerned about the personal attacks politicians make on each other.

_________________

Tricky Quant problems: http://gmatclub.com/forum/50-tricky-questions-92834.html
Important Grammer Fundamentals: http://gmatclub.com/forum/key-fundamentals-of-grammer-our-crucial-learnings-on-sc-93659.html

Intern
Joined: 29 Dec 2010
Posts: 8
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

02 Jan 2011, 15:04
nverma's answer is amazing. the OA is B.
Verbal Forum Moderator
Joined: 31 Jan 2010
Posts: 493
WE 1: 4 years Tech
Followers: 12

Kudos [?]: 145 [0], given: 149

### Show Tags

04 Jan 2011, 05:53
Nice question.Can u pls post a few more
_________________

My Post Invites Discussions not answers
Try to give back something to the Forum.I want your explanations, right now !

Manager
Joined: 07 Jul 2010
Posts: 99
Location: Hanoi, Vietnam
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 53 [0], given: 18

### Show Tags

25 Jan 2011, 09:25
I go for B
_________________

Hung M.Tran
Faculty of Banking and Finance,
National Economics University of Vietnam

Manager
Joined: 27 Jul 2010
Posts: 197
Location: Prague
Schools: University of Economics Prague
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 43 [0], given: 15

### Show Tags

25 Jan 2011, 14:01
woaw, B you say? bud D was better at the first glance
_________________

You want somethin', go get it. Period!

SVP
Joined: 16 Nov 2010
Posts: 1671
Location: United States (IN)
Concentration: Strategy, Technology
Followers: 33

Kudos [?]: 528 [0], given: 36

### Show Tags

23 Mar 2011, 22:19
_________________

Formula of Life -> Achievement/Potential = k * Happiness (where k is a constant)

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings

Manager
Joined: 06 Sep 2010
Posts: 121
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 6

### Show Tags

25 Mar 2011, 19:06
Can anyone explain why B and not D???
Thanks!
Senior Manager
Joined: 17 Mar 2011
Posts: 452
Location: United States (DC)
Concentration: General Management, Technology
GMAT 1: 760 Q49 V45
GPA: 3.37
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
Followers: 11

Kudos [?]: 183 [0], given: 5

### Show Tags

26 Mar 2011, 04:51
Quote:
(D) The purpose of serious debate about ideas and policies is to counteract the effect of personal attacks by politicians.

The relevant text from the argument is:
"Political commentators should be engaged in sustained and serious debate about ideas and policies. In such a context personal attacks on opponents serve not to beat those opponents but to cut off the debate."

If you notice, the first sentence doesn't indicate anything about the PURPOSE of serious debate.
Sentence two indicates a causal relationship between personal attacks (instead of serious debate) and cutting off the debate. "Personal Attacks by commentators CAUSES debate to be cut off". This is a cause/effect statement, but does not touch on purpose.
Retired Moderator
Status: 2000 posts! I don't know whether I should feel great or sad about it! LOL
Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 1708
Location: Peru
Schools: Harvard, Stanford, Wharton, MIT & HKS (Government)
WE 1: Economic research
WE 2: Banking
WE 3: Government: Foreign Trade and SMEs
Followers: 102

Kudos [?]: 955 [0], given: 109

### Show Tags

26 Mar 2011, 17:04
+1 B

Usually, the main point is the conclusion of the argument but rephrased.
_________________

"Life’s battle doesn’t always go to stronger or faster men; but sooner or later the man who wins is the one who thinks he can."

My Integrated Reasoning Logbook / Diary: http://gmatclub.com/forum/my-ir-logbook-diary-133264.html

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings

Re: politicians personal attacks   [#permalink] 26 Mar 2011, 17:04
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
1 When politicians resort to personal attacks, many editorialists critic 2 20 Feb 2017, 02:43
3 Lsat:Famous personalities found guilty of many types of crimes 2 17 Sep 2014, 04:09
Famous personalities found guilty of many types of crimes in 6 31 Jan 2013, 21:18
1 Many people, when asked, said they voted in the last 8 01 Nov 2012, 04:20
When a study of aspirin s ability to prevent heart attacks 4 01 Jul 2009, 02:15
Display posts from previous: Sort by