It is currently 17 Oct 2017, 21:18

### 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
BSchool Forum Moderator
Joined: 02 Oct 2009
Posts: 589

Kudos [?]: 448 [1], given: 412

GMAT 1: 530 Q47 V17
GMAT 2: 710 Q50 V36
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% (01:13) correct 74% (01:22) wrong based on 43 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.

Kudos [?]: 448 [1], given: 412

Senior Manager
Joined: 01 Feb 2010
Posts: 251

Kudos [?]: 61 [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.

Kudos [?]: 61 [0], given: 2

Director
Joined: 01 Apr 2008
Posts: 875

Kudos [?]: 843 [0], given: 18

Name: Ronak Amin
Schools: IIM Lucknow (IPMX) - Class of 2014

### Show Tags

13 May 2010, 08:57
I go with B.
OA?

Kudos [?]: 843 [0], given: 18

VP
Joined: 17 Feb 2010
Posts: 1477

Kudos [?]: 756 [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.

Kudos [?]: 756 [0], given: 6

Senior Manager
Joined: 24 Jul 2009
Posts: 287

Kudos [?]: 165 [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.

Kudos [?]: 165 [1], given: 0

BSchool Forum Moderator
Joined: 02 Oct 2009
Posts: 589

Kudos [?]: 448 [0], given: 412

GMAT 1: 530 Q47 V17
GMAT 2: 710 Q50 V36

### Show Tags

13 May 2010, 18:56
[Reveal] Spoiler:
OA:B

Kudos [?]: 448 [0], given: 412

Manager
Joined: 16 Feb 2010
Posts: 179

Kudos [?]: 34 [0], given: 17

### Show Tags

15 May 2010, 05:11
yup B must be the answer

Kudos [?]: 34 [0], given: 17

Director
Joined: 25 Aug 2007
Posts: 927

Kudos [?]: 1503 [0], given: 40

WE 1: 3.5 yrs IT
WE 2: 2.5 yrs Retail chain

### 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

Kudos [?]: 1503 [0], given: 40

Intern
Joined: 29 Dec 2010
Posts: 8

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

### Show Tags

02 Jan 2011, 15:04
nverma's answer is amazing. the OA is B.

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

Verbal Forum Moderator
Joined: 31 Jan 2010
Posts: 487

Kudos [?]: 161 [0], given: 149

WE 1: 4 years Tech

### 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 !

Kudos [?]: 161 [0], given: 149

Manager
Joined: 07 Jul 2010
Posts: 92

Kudos [?]: 59 [0], given: 18

Location: Hanoi, Vietnam

### Show Tags

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

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

Kudos [?]: 59 [0], given: 18

Manager
Joined: 27 Jul 2010
Posts: 192

Kudos [?]: 46 [0], given: 15

Location: Prague
Schools: University of Economics Prague

### 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!

Kudos [?]: 46 [0], given: 15

SVP
Joined: 16 Nov 2010
Posts: 1598

Kudos [?]: 592 [0], given: 36

Location: United States (IN)
Concentration: Strategy, Technology

### 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

Kudos [?]: 592 [0], given: 36

Manager
Joined: 06 Sep 2010
Posts: 112

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

### Show Tags

25 Mar 2011, 19:06
Can anyone explain why B and not D???
Thanks!

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

Senior Manager
Joined: 17 Mar 2011
Posts: 449

Kudos [?]: 186 [0], given: 5

Location: United States (DC)
Concentration: General Management, Technology
GMAT 1: 760 Q49 V45
GPA: 3.37
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)

### 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.

Kudos [?]: 186 [0], given: 5

Retired Moderator
Status: 2000 posts! I don't know whether I should feel great or sad about it! LOL
Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 1636

Kudos [?]: 1105 [0], given: 109

Location: Peru
Schools: Harvard, Stanford, Wharton, MIT & HKS (Government)
WE 1: Economic research
WE 2: Banking
WE 3: Government: Foreign Trade and SMEs

### 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

Kudos [?]: 1105 [0], given: 109

Re: politicians personal attacks   [#permalink] 26 Mar 2011, 17:04
Display posts from previous: Sort by