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

 It is currently 17 Oct 2019, 15:57

### 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

# Whenever a major political scandal erupts before an election

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 14 Oct 2012
Posts: 160
Re: Whenever a major political scandal erupts before an election  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

11 May 2017, 21:16
1
My 2 cents:
Whole (party scandal) ----x---> Party’s individual members
Individual member (scandal) ---> Party’s ALL members
So what happens to whole DOES NOT impact the part i.e. individual members BUT what happens to part DOES impact the whole i.e. ALL the members of party.
ONLY E resembles this condition!!!
VP
Joined: 12 Dec 2016
Posts: 1492
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V33
GPA: 3.64
Re: Whenever a major political scandal erupts before an election  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 May 2017, 13:11
1
GMATNinja wrote:
Quote:
can somebody explain the question ?

Let's say that the mayor of a town always belongs to one of three political parties: X, Y, or Z. The town holds an election every year, voting either to keep the incumbent mayor (if that mayor runs for reelection) or to elect a new mayor.
Quote:
Whenever a major political scandal erupts before an election and voters blame the scandal on all parties about equally, virtually all incumbents, from whatever party, seeking reelection are returned to office.

(Scenario 1): According to this statement, if a major political scandal erupts before one of the annual elections and voters blame the scandal on all three parties about equally, then the incumbent mayor, if seeking reelection, will almost certainly win the election, regardless of the mayor's political party affiliation. In other words, even though the incumbent belongs to a party that is equally blamed for the scandal, the incumbent and his/her party do not suffer negative political consequences.
Quote:
However, when voters blame such a scandal on only one party, incumbents from that party are likely to be defeated by challengers from other parties.

(Scenario 2): If the current mayor belongs to Party X, and voters blame the scandal on Party X, the current mayor, if seeking reelection, is likely to be defeated by a challenger from Party Y or Party Z. In other words, when the incumbent's party is the ONLY party blamed, the incumbent and his/her party DO suffer negative political consequences.

Now on to the question stem:
Quote:
If the voters’ reactions are guided by a principle, which one of the following principles would best account for the contrast in reactions described above?

The "voters' reactions" are described in the first two sentences: scenario 1) when voters blame a pre-election scandal on all parties equally, the incumbent usually wins, and scenario 2) when voters blame a pre-election scandal on the party of the incumbent, the incumbent usually loses. If we are told that those reactions are guided by a principle, which principle would best account for the contrast in those reactions?
Quote:
(A) Whenever one incumbent is responsible for one major political scandal and another incumbent is responsible for another, the consequences for the two incumbents should be the same.

The argument in the passage does not discuss how the voters would react if one incumbent were responsible for one major scandal and another incumbent were responsible for another. Choice (A) can be eliminated.
Quote:
(B) When a major political scandal is blamed on incumbents from all parties, that judgment is more accurate than any judgment that incumbents from only on party are to blame.

We are looking for a principle that accounts for the contrast in the voters' reactions (scenario 1 vs scenario 2), and we don't care whether the judgment on which one reaction is based is more accurate than the judgment on which the other is based. Choice (B) can be eliminated.
Quote:
(C) Incumbents who are rightly blamed for a major political scandal should not seek reelection, but if they do, they should not be returned to office.

First, the passage does not consider whether incumbents blamed for a major political scandal should or should not seek reelection. Second, choice (C) only explains the voters' reaction in scenario 2 and does NOT explain the contrast in those reactions. Choice (C) can be eliminated.
Quote:
(D) Major political scandals can practically always be blamed on incumbents, but whether those incumbents should be voted out of office depends on who their challengers are.

This statement does not align with the information in the passage. According to the passage, if incumbents (and hence their parties) are blamed for a pre-election scandal, those incumbents will most likely lose the election, regardless of "who their challengers are." Choice (D) can be eliminated.
Quote:
(E) When major political scandals are less the responsibility of individual incumbents than of the parties to which they belong, whatever party was responsible must be penalized when possible.

First, apply this principle to scenario 2 (the incumbent's party--Party X, for example--receives all of the blame): in that case, Party X can easily be penalized by voting for someone in Party Y or Party Z. Now, consider scenario 1 (for example, the incumbent belongs to Party X but Parties X, Y, and Z all receive equal blame): if we follow the principle in statement (E), we should penalize ALL parties. If we vote for someone in Party Y or Z, one of those parties is rewarded while party X is penalized. There is no way to penalize all parties equally since a member of one of the parties has to win. In that case, the voters might just stick with the default option (the incumbent). Thus, choice (E) is the best choice.

hello, since you are verbal expert in Gmat, you definitely know how to interpret all the options in less than 2 mins. I really want to know how you do that. It would be great for me to master the skills in verbal section.
Intern
Joined: 17 Mar 2017
Posts: 2
Re: Whenever a major political scandal erupts before an election  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 May 2017, 07:40
1
GMATNinja wrote:
Quote:
can somebody explain the question ?

Let's say that the mayor of a town always belongs to one of three political parties: X, Y, or Z. The town holds an election every year, voting either to keep the incumbent mayor (if that mayor runs for reelection) or to elect a new mayor.
Quote:
Whenever a major political scandal erupts before an election and voters blame the scandal on all parties about equally, virtually all incumbents, from whatever party, seeking reelection are returned to office.

(Scenario 1): According to this statement, if a major political scandal erupts before one of the annual elections and voters blame the scandal on all three parties about equally, then the incumbent mayor, if seeking reelection, will almost certainly win the election, regardless of the mayor's political party affiliation. In other words, even though the incumbent belongs to a party that is equally blamed for the scandal, the incumbent and his/her party do not suffer negative political consequences.
Quote:
However, when voters blame such a scandal on only one party, incumbents from that party are likely to be defeated by challengers from other parties.

(Scenario 2): If the current mayor belongs to Party X, and voters blame the scandal on Party X, the current mayor, if seeking reelection, is likely to be defeated by a challenger from Party Y or Party Z. In other words, when the incumbent's party is the ONLY party blamed, the incumbent and his/her party DO suffer negative political consequences.

Now on to the question stem:
Quote:
If the voters’ reactions are guided by a principle, which one of the following principles would best account for the contrast in reactions described above?

The "voters' reactions" are described in the first two sentences: scenario 1) when voters blame a pre-election scandal on all parties equally, the incumbent usually wins, and scenario 2) when voters blame a pre-election scandal on the party of the incumbent, the incumbent usually loses. If we are told that those reactions are guided by a principle, which principle would best account for the contrast in those reactions?
Quote:
(A) Whenever one incumbent is responsible for one major political scandal and another incumbent is responsible for another, the consequences for the two incumbents should be the same.

The argument in the passage does not discuss how the voters would react if one incumbent were responsible for one major scandal and another incumbent were responsible for another. Choice (A) can be eliminated.
Quote:
(B) When a major political scandal is blamed on incumbents from all parties, that judgment is more accurate than any judgment that incumbents from only on party are to blame.

We are looking for a principle that accounts for the contrast in the voters' reactions (scenario 1 vs scenario 2), and we don't care whether the judgment on which one reaction is based is more accurate than the judgment on which the other is based. Choice (B) can be eliminated.
Quote:
(C) Incumbents who are rightly blamed for a major political scandal should not seek reelection, but if they do, they should not be returned to office.

First, the passage does not consider whether incumbents blamed for a major political scandal should or should not seek reelection. Second, choice (C) only explains the voters' reaction in scenario 2 and does NOT explain the contrast in those reactions. Choice (C) can be eliminated.
Quote:
(D) Major political scandals can practically always be blamed on incumbents, but whether those incumbents should be voted out of office depends on who their challengers are.

This statement does not align with the information in the passage. According to the passage, if incumbents (and hence their parties) are blamed for a pre-election scandal, those incumbents will most likely lose the election, regardless of "who their challengers are." Choice (D) can be eliminated.
Quote:
(E) When major political scandals are less the responsibility of individual incumbents than of the parties to which they belong, whatever party was responsible must be penalized when possible.

First, apply this principle to scenario 2 (the incumbent's party--Party X, for example--receives all of the blame): in that case, Party X can easily be penalized by voting for someone in Party Y or Party Z. Now, consider scenario 1 (for example, the incumbent belongs to Party X but Parties X, Y, and Z all receive equal blame): if we follow the principle in statement (E), we should penalize ALL parties. If we vote for someone in Party Y or Z, one of those parties is rewarded while party X is penalized. There is no way to penalize all parties equally since a member of one of the parties has to win. In that case, the voters might just stick with the default option (the incumbent). Thus, choice (E) is the best choice.

This explanation is detailed and wonderful!!Thanks a lot!
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Status: GMAT and GRE tutor
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 2857
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
Re: Whenever a major political scandal erupts before an election  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 May 2017, 12:39
Thank you, muerbingsha! And welcome to GMAT Club!
_________________
GMAT/GRE tutor @ www.gmatninja.com (we're hiring!) | GMAT Club Verbal Expert | Instagram | Blog | Bad at PMs

Beginners' guides to GMAT verbal: RC | CR | SC

YouTube LIVE verbal webinars: Series 1: SC & CR Fundamentals | Series 2: Developing a Winning GMAT Mindset | Series 3: Word Problem Bootcamp + Next-Level SC & CR

SC articles & resources: How to go from great (760) to incredible (780) on GMAT SC | That "-ing" Word Probably Isn't a Verb | That "-ed" Word Might Not Be a Verb, Either | No-BS Guide to GMAT Idioms | "Being" is not the enemy | WTF is "that" doing in my sentence?

RC, CR, and other articles & resources: All GMAT Ninja articles on GMAT Club | Using LSAT for GMAT CR & RC |7 reasons why your actual GMAT scores don't match your practice test scores | How to get 4 additional "fake" GMAT Prep tests for \$29.99 | Time management on verbal

SC & CR Questions of the Day (QOTDs), featuring expert explanations: All QOTDs | Subscribe via email | RSS

Need an expert reply? Hit the request verbal experts' reply button; be specific about your question, and tag @GMATNinja. Priority is always given to official GMAT questions.
Intern
Joined: 11 Jun 2017
Posts: 21
Re: Whenever a major political scandal erupts before an election  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Jun 2017, 19:05
Question: All Parties (whole) blamed --> incumbents (Parts) OK

Answer E: Incumbents (Part)blamed --> Parties (whole) NOT OK.

(because E indicates that even Incumbent is less responsible for scandal the party still gets punished. In short, as long as incumbent is involved the party gets punished.)

Just trying to explain from own understanding, is my logic correct?
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Status: GMAT and GRE tutor
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 2857
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
Re: Whenever a major political scandal erupts before an election  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Jun 2017, 18:11
NNURP wrote:
Question: All Parties (whole) blamed --> incumbents (Parts) OK

Answer E: Incumbents (Part)blamed --> Parties (whole) NOT OK.

(because E indicates that even Incumbent is less responsible for scandal the party still gets punished. In short, as long as incumbent is involved the party gets punished.)

Just trying to explain from own understanding, is my logic correct?

Quote:
(E) When major political scandals are less the responsibility of individual incumbents than of the parties to which they belong, whatever party was responsible must be penalized when possible.

Hi NNURP, I'm not sure I follow your logic, but see if this helps:

Apply the principle described in choice (E) to the scenario where the incumbent's party--Party X, for example--receives all of the blame: in that case, Party X can easily be penalized by voting for someone in Party Y or Party Z (I think this is what you mean when you say, "as long as incumbent is involved the party gets punished").

Now imagine that the incumbent belongs to Party X but Parties X, Y, and Z all receive equal blame: if we follow the principle in statement (E), we should penalize ALL parties. If we vote for someone in Party Y or Z, one of those parties is rewarded while party X is penalized. There is no way to penalize all parties equally since a member of one of the parties has to win. In that case, the voters might just stick with the default option (the incumbent).
_________________
GMAT/GRE tutor @ www.gmatninja.com (we're hiring!) | GMAT Club Verbal Expert | Instagram | Blog | Bad at PMs

Beginners' guides to GMAT verbal: RC | CR | SC

YouTube LIVE verbal webinars: Series 1: SC & CR Fundamentals | Series 2: Developing a Winning GMAT Mindset | Series 3: Word Problem Bootcamp + Next-Level SC & CR

SC articles & resources: How to go from great (760) to incredible (780) on GMAT SC | That "-ing" Word Probably Isn't a Verb | That "-ed" Word Might Not Be a Verb, Either | No-BS Guide to GMAT Idioms | "Being" is not the enemy | WTF is "that" doing in my sentence?

RC, CR, and other articles & resources: All GMAT Ninja articles on GMAT Club | Using LSAT for GMAT CR & RC |7 reasons why your actual GMAT scores don't match your practice test scores | How to get 4 additional "fake" GMAT Prep tests for \$29.99 | Time management on verbal

SC & CR Questions of the Day (QOTDs), featuring expert explanations: All QOTDs | Subscribe via email | RSS

Need an expert reply? Hit the request verbal experts' reply button; be specific about your question, and tag @GMATNinja. Priority is always given to official GMAT questions.
VP
Joined: 12 Dec 2016
Posts: 1492
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V33
GPA: 3.64
Re: Whenever a major political scandal erupts before an election  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Sep 2017, 13:48
Using POE, only E is left.
Without using POE, E still wins b/c of the logic behind it.
Retired Moderator
Status: Long way to go!
Joined: 10 Oct 2016
Posts: 1333
Location: Viet Nam
Re: Whenever a major political scandal erupts before an election  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Oct 2017, 21:22
2
This question is from LSAT test - PrepTest 5 (Jun 1992), question No. 21 section 1.

I have updated the OE in post #1. You could check GMATNinja's explanation HERE.

Really a tough question since the sentences in all choices are wordy and hard to follow the meaning. Took me nearly 6 mins to get E
_________________
Intern
Joined: 15 Aug 2015
Posts: 49
Location: India
Schools: LBS '18, ISB '19
GMAT 1: 610 Q48 V26
GPA: 3.21
Re: Whenever a major political scandal erupts before an election  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Oct 2017, 06:38
1
GMATNinja wrote:
Quote:
can somebody explain the question ?

Let's say that the mayor of a town always belongs to one of three political parties: X, Y, or Z. The town holds an election every year, voting either to keep the incumbent mayor (if that mayor runs for reelection) or to elect a new mayor.
Quote:
Whenever a major political scandal erupts before an election and voters blame the scandal on all parties about equally, virtually all incumbents, from whatever party, seeking reelection are returned to office.

(Scenario 1): According to this statement, if a major political scandal erupts before one of the annual elections and voters blame the scandal on all three parties about equally, then the incumbent mayor, if seeking reelection, will almost certainly win the election, regardless of the mayor's political party affiliation. In other words, even though the incumbent belongs to a party that is equally blamed for the scandal, the incumbent and his/her party do not suffer negative political consequences.
Quote:
However, when voters blame such a scandal on only one party, incumbents from that party are likely to be defeated by challengers from other parties.

(Scenario 2): If the current mayor belongs to Party X, and voters blame the scandal on Party X, the current mayor, if seeking reelection, is likely to be defeated by a challenger from Party Y or Party Z. In other words, when the incumbent's party is the ONLY party blamed, the incumbent and his/her party DO suffer negative political consequences.

Now on to the question stem:
Quote:
If the voters’ reactions are guided by a principle, which one of the following principles would best account for the contrast in reactions described above?

The "voters' reactions" are described in the first two sentences: scenario 1) when voters blame a pre-election scandal on all parties equally, the incumbent usually wins, and scenario 2) when voters blame a pre-election scandal on the party of the incumbent, the incumbent usually loses. If we are told that those reactions are guided by a principle, which principle would best account for the contrast in those reactions?
Quote:
(A) Whenever one incumbent is responsible for one major political scandal and another incumbent is responsible for another, the consequences for the two incumbents should be the same.

The argument in the passage does not discuss how the voters would react if one incumbent were responsible for one major scandal and another incumbent were responsible for another. Choice (A) can be eliminated.
Quote:
(B) When a major political scandal is blamed on incumbents from all parties, that judgment is more accurate than any judgment that incumbents from only on party are to blame.

We are looking for a principle that accounts for the contrast in the voters' reactions (scenario 1 vs scenario 2), and we don't care whether the judgment on which one reaction is based is more accurate than the judgment on which the other is based. Choice (B) can be eliminated.
Quote:
(C) Incumbents who are rightly blamed for a major political scandal should not seek reelection, but if they do, they should not be returned to office.

First, the passage does not consider whether incumbents blamed for a major political scandal should or should not seek reelection. Second, choice (C) only explains the voters' reaction in scenario 2 and does NOT explain the contrast in those reactions. Choice (C) can be eliminated.
Quote:
(D) Major political scandals can practically always be blamed on incumbents, but whether those incumbents should be voted out of office depends on who their challengers are.

This statement does not align with the information in the passage. According to the passage, if incumbents (and hence their parties) are blamed for a pre-election scandal, those incumbents will most likely lose the election, regardless of "who their challengers are." Choice (D) can be eliminated.
Quote:
(E) When major political scandals are less the responsibility of individual incumbents than of the parties to which they belong, whatever party was responsible must be penalized when possible.

First, apply this principle to scenario 2 (the incumbent's party--Party X, for example--receives all of the blame): in that case, Party X can easily be penalized by voting for someone in Party Y or Party Z. Now, consider scenario 1 (for example, the incumbent belongs to Party X but Parties X, Y, and Z all receive equal blame): if we follow the principle in statement (E), we should penalize ALL parties. If we vote for someone in Party Y or Z, one of those parties is rewarded while party X is penalized. There is no way to penalize all parties equally since a member of one of the parties has to win. In that case, the voters might just stick with the default option (the incumbent). Thus, choice (E) is the best choice.

GMATNinja
I love your explanations , but this is elegance.
I searched powerscore blog , manhattan lsat blog , even other explanations in this post, but all of them seem so downtrodden in comparison to this one. Most of them have reached to answer E by doing POE, or used some funy words to take the pressure of ((( as if they really were doing do))
Really nice !!!
Thank you
Intern
Joined: 29 Aug 2017
Posts: 8
Location: India
Schools: WP Carey" 20
GMAT 1: 540 Q44 V33
GPA: 3.75
Re: Whenever a major political scandal erupts before an election  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Nov 2017, 08:43
_________________
If you want to shine like a Sun, first burn like a Sun:.... APJ Abdul Kalam
Director
Joined: 18 Dec 2017
Posts: 510
Location: United States (KS)
Re: Whenever a major political scandal erupts before an election  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Jul 2019, 10:00
GMATNinja wrote:
Quote:
can somebody explain the question ?

Let's say that the mayor of a town always belongs to one of three political parties: X, Y, or Z. The town holds an election every year, voting either to keep the incumbent mayor (if that mayor runs for reelection) or to elect a new mayor.
Quote:
Whenever a major political scandal erupts before an election and voters blame the scandal on all parties about equally, virtually all incumbents, from whatever party, seeking reelection are returned to office.

(Scenario 1): According to this statement, if a major political scandal erupts before one of the annual elections and voters blame the scandal on all three parties about equally, then the incumbent mayor, if seeking reelection, will almost certainly win the election, regardless of the mayor's political party affiliation. In other words, even though the incumbent belongs to a party that is equally blamed for the scandal, the incumbent and his/her party do not suffer negative political consequences.
Quote:
However, when voters blame such a scandal on only one party, incumbents from that party are likely to be defeated by challengers from other parties.

(Scenario 2): If the current mayor belongs to Party X, and voters blame the scandal on Party X, the current mayor, if seeking reelection, is likely to be defeated by a challenger from Party Y or Party Z. In other words, when the incumbent's party is the ONLY party blamed, the incumbent and his/her party DO suffer negative political consequences.

Now on to the question stem:
Quote:
If the voters’ reactions are guided by a principle, which one of the following principles would best account for the contrast in reactions described above?

The "voters' reactions" are described in the first two sentences: scenario 1) when voters blame a pre-election scandal on all parties equally, the incumbent usually wins, and scenario 2) when voters blame a pre-election scandal on the party of the incumbent, the incumbent usually loses. If we are told that those reactions are guided by a principle, which principle would best account for the contrast in those reactions?
Quote:
(A) Whenever one incumbent is responsible for one major political scandal and another incumbent is responsible for another, the consequences for the two incumbents should be the same.

The argument in the passage does not discuss how the voters would react if one incumbent were responsible for one major scandal and another incumbent were responsible for another. Choice (A) can be eliminated.
Quote:
(B) When a major political scandal is blamed on incumbents from all parties, that judgment is more accurate than any judgment that incumbents from only on party are to blame.

We are looking for a principle that accounts for the contrast in the voters' reactions (scenario 1 vs scenario 2), and we don't care whether the judgment on which one reaction is based is more accurate than the judgment on which the other is based. Choice (B) can be eliminated.
Quote:
(C) Incumbents who are rightly blamed for a major political scandal should not seek reelection, but if they do, they should not be returned to office.

First, the passage does not consider whether incumbents blamed for a major political scandal should or should not seek reelection. Second, choice (C) only explains the voters' reaction in scenario 2 and does NOT explain the contrast in those reactions. Choice (C) can be eliminated.
Quote:
(D) Major political scandals can practically always be blamed on incumbents, but whether those incumbents should be voted out of office depends on who their challengers are.

This statement does not align with the information in the passage. According to the passage, if incumbents (and hence their parties) are blamed for a pre-election scandal, those incumbents will most likely lose the election, regardless of "who their challengers are." Choice (D) can be eliminated.
Quote:
(E) When major political scandals are less the responsibility of individual incumbents than of the parties to which they belong, whatever party was responsible must be penalized when possible.

First, apply this principle to scenario 2 (the incumbent's party--Party X, for example--receives all of the blame): in that case, Party X can easily be penalized by voting for someone in Party Y or Party Z. Now, consider scenario 1 (for example, the incumbent belongs to Party X but Parties X, Y, and Z all receive equal blame): if we follow the principle in statement (E), we should penalize ALL parties. If we vote for someone in Party Y or Z, one of those parties is rewarded while party X is penalized. There is no way to penalize all parties equally since a member of one of the parties has to win. In that case, the voters might just stick with the default option (the incumbent). Thus, choice (E) is the best choice.

Thank you for such great explanations across the forums. I got this one right and it surely feels good Thank you!
_________________
“Practice is the hardest part of learning, and training is the essence of transformation.” ― Ann Voskamp
Software Tester currently in USA ( )
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Status: GMAT and GRE tutor
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 2857
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
Re: Whenever a major political scandal erupts before an election  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Jul 2019, 20:12
TheNightKing wrote:
Thank you for such great explanations across the forums. I got this one right and it surely feels good Thank you!

Thank you for the kind words!! I'm glad we could help.
_________________
GMAT/GRE tutor @ www.gmatninja.com (we're hiring!) | GMAT Club Verbal Expert | Instagram | Blog | Bad at PMs

Beginners' guides to GMAT verbal: RC | CR | SC

YouTube LIVE verbal webinars: Series 1: SC & CR Fundamentals | Series 2: Developing a Winning GMAT Mindset | Series 3: Word Problem Bootcamp + Next-Level SC & CR

SC articles & resources: How to go from great (760) to incredible (780) on GMAT SC | That "-ing" Word Probably Isn't a Verb | That "-ed" Word Might Not Be a Verb, Either | No-BS Guide to GMAT Idioms | "Being" is not the enemy | WTF is "that" doing in my sentence?

RC, CR, and other articles & resources: All GMAT Ninja articles on GMAT Club | Using LSAT for GMAT CR & RC |7 reasons why your actual GMAT scores don't match your practice test scores | How to get 4 additional "fake" GMAT Prep tests for \$29.99 | Time management on verbal

SC & CR Questions of the Day (QOTDs), featuring expert explanations: All QOTDs | Subscribe via email | RSS

Need an expert reply? Hit the request verbal experts' reply button; be specific about your question, and tag @GMATNinja. Priority is always given to official GMAT questions.
Senior Manager
Joined: 12 Jan 2019
Posts: 263
Re: Whenever a major political scandal erupts before an election  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Jul 2019, 02:52
This is a pretty wacky question, but we're basically looking for a principle that explains why incumbents generally are reelected when voters blame a scandal on all parties equally, while incumbents from a particular party usually are defeated when voters blame that party specifically for the scandal.

Looking at this one, I found the correct answer to be less than fully satisfying, but I knew I'd gotten it because I made sure to work from wrong to right. Let's see if we can definitively get rid of four wrong answers.

(A) is out of scope. We care about what happens when a political party is blamed for a scandal, not about what happens if two individual incumbents are equally to blame for something.

(B) is likewise out of scope. Accuracy of judgments has nothing to do with the stimulus, and this answer choice doesn't explain why voters vote the way they do.

(C) is out because the stimulus never touches on whether incumbents should seek reelection; further, the statements are about when a party, not an individual, is blamed.

(D) is out because the statements never suggest that the identity of the challenger is significant.

So that leaves us with (E). It may look a little funky, but it gets us where we need to go: when major political scandals are blamed on a particular party, that party must be penalized, i.e., its incumbents must suffer. This explains the voter behavior outlined in the stimulus.

_________________
In case my post helps you, please provide me with kudos. Thank you
Re: Whenever a major political scandal erupts before an election   [#permalink] 25 Jul 2019, 02:52

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 33 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by