BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

CR:Line of reasoning

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Legendary Member
Posts: 537
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 10:06 pm
Thanked: 14 times
Followed by:1 members

CR:Line of reasoning

by frank1 » Thu Nov 11, 2010 9:44 pm
Ok,
I have been preparing from gmat from some time now.
In CR questions strike rate has been 70%(including hard ones)
In prep tets,i am still fluctuating normally long questions and so called hard question normally with 2 best options.

Like this one
Mr. Janeck: I don't believe Stevenson will win the election for governor. Few voters are willing to elect a businessman with no political experience to such a responsible public office.
Ms. Siuzdak: You're wrong. The experience of running a major corporation is a valuable preparation for the task of running a state government.
M. Siuzdak's response shows that she has interpreted Mr. Janeck's remark to imply which of the following?
(A) Mr. Janeck considers Stevenson unqualified for the office of governor.
(B) No candidate without political experience has ever been elected governor of a state.
(C) Mr. Janeck believes that political leadership and business leadership are closely analogous.
(D) A career spent in the pursuit of profit can be an impediment to one's ability to run a state government fairly.
(E) Voters generally overestimate the value of political experience when selecting a candidate.
source:1000 CR

Now:My processing
Conclusion Janet: Steve wont win
Evidence:He doesnt have political experience...
Answers:Sdak: No,he had experience which can be equivalent to political experience.

Question is:HOW Sdak has understood Janet.....NOT what author is trying to say
Now 1st round B and C out
Now A,D,E are contenders
D is true but may be not relevant or generalization AND as there are better options than that cross it off.

Left:A and E
Now,my thought process,as it is question about What sdak thinks,if we go to what she says:
He has this EXPERIENCE which may be equivalent to political experience(what was mentioned by Janet)

She understood that according to janet people care political experience much and no other experience can substitute it.
(so she has responded in that way..)
She doesnt say HE WILL WIN.
SO,from my thought it should have been E
but as per them OA is A.
(as usual people have started digging reasons for it)
I think both can qualify as answer.but from the reasoning above E should be the answer.

So my question is not why A is answer but
Why E is not answer
and where is flaw in my line of reasoning.

I normally failing after i come down to 2 options.

Thanks
GMAT score is equally counted as your GPA and 78 clicks can change you life.
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 437
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 5:06 am
Location: India
Thanked: 50 times
Followed by:1 members
GMAT Score:580

by beat_gmat_09 » Fri Nov 12, 2010 4:38 am
frank1 wrote:Ok,
I have been preparing from gmat from some time now.
In CR questions strike rate has been 70%(including hard ones)
In prep tets,i am still fluctuating normally long questions and so called hard question normally with 2 best options.

Like this one
Mr. Janeck: I don't believe Stevenson will win the election for governor. Few voters are willing to elect a businessman with no political experience to such a responsible public office.
Ms. Siuzdak: You're wrong. The experience of running a major corporation is a valuable preparation for the task of running a state government.
M. Siuzdak's response shows that she has interpreted Mr. Janeck's remark to imply which of the following?
(A) Mr. Janeck considers Stevenson unqualified for the office of governor.
(B) No candidate without political experience has ever been elected governor of a state.
(C) Mr. Janeck believes that political leadership and business leadership are closely analogous.
(D) A career spent in the pursuit of profit can be an impediment to one's ability to run a state government fairly.
(E) Voters generally overestimate the value of political experience when selecting a candidate.
source:1000 CR

Now:My processing
Conclusion Janet: Steve wont win
Evidence:He doesnt have political experience...
Answers:Sdak: No,he had experience which can be equivalent to political experience.

Question is:HOW Sdak has understood Janet.....NOT what author is trying to say
Now 1st round B and C out
Now A,D,E are contenders
D is true but may be not relevant or generalization AND as there are better options than that cross it off.

Left:A and E
Now,my thought process,as it is question about What sdak thinks,if we go to what she says:
He has this EXPERIENCE which may be equivalent to political experience(what was mentioned by Janet)

She understood that according to janet people care political experience much and no other experience can substitute it.
(so she has responded in that way..)
She doesnt say HE WILL WIN.
SO,from my thought it should have been E
but as per them OA is A.
(as usual people have started digging reasons for it)
I think both can qualify as answer.but from the reasoning above E should be the answer.

So my question is not why A is answer but
Why E is not answer
and where is flaw in my line of reasoning.

I normally failing after i come down to 2 options.

Thanks
The difference is - Voters (in option E) and Few Voters (Question Stem)
Voters - Voters in general.
Few Voters - countable number of voters.
Hope is the dream of a man awake
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 537
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 10:06 pm
Thanked: 14 times
Followed by:1 members

by frank1 » Fri Nov 12, 2010 4:57 am
beat_gmat_09 wrote: The difference is - Voters (in option E) and Few Voters (Question Stem)
Voters - Voters in general.
Few Voters - countable number of voters.
But i think you should not forget that it has been used in negative sense
Few voters are ready for accept him without political experience
means
majority of the voters wont accept him and they think political experience is important and required which has been stated in E.
GMAT score is equally counted as your GPA and 78 clicks can change you life.
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 437
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 5:06 am
Location: India
Thanked: 50 times
Followed by:1 members
GMAT Score:580

by beat_gmat_09 » Fri Nov 12, 2010 5:18 am
frank1 wrote:
beat_gmat_09 wrote: The difference is - Voters (in option E) and Few Voters (Question Stem)
Voters - Voters in general.
Few Voters - countable number of voters.
But i think you should not forget that it has been used in negative sense
Few voters are ready for accept him without political experience
means
majority of the voters wont accept him and they think political experience is important and required which has been stated in E.
The question is to imply directly from the statements.
What Janeck thinks is - Stevenson will not win. Why ? Just Because few voters (say for example 2 out of 10) want a businessman without political experience to take the charge.
What Siuzdak thinks - Experience of running corpo is valuable to run govt, so no need of political bck.
Siuzdak does not say that voters are overestimating value of political importance. In fact Statement E is too Broad, it implies Voters in general prefer a candidate with non-political background. But in the question stem it is said that only a few people want this to happen (say for example 2), but statement E considers all of 10-for example. This is invalid implication. Siuzdak rather wants to say that Janeck is under the impression that Stevenson is not fit to be elected, just because few voters (a handful) want a candidate with political background, nothing is mentioned in the question stem about the remaining voters (Voters - Few) so statement E becomes too generalized and broad.
Hope is the dream of a man awake
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 537
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 10:06 pm
Thanked: 14 times
Followed by:1 members

by frank1 » Fri Nov 12, 2010 7:58 am
beat_gmat_09 wrote:
The question is to imply directly from the statements.
What Janeck thinks is - Stevenson will not win. Why ? Just Because few voters (say for example 2 out of 10) want a businessman without political experience to take the charge.
What Siuzdak thinks - Experience of running corpo is valuable to run govt, so no need of political bck.
Siuzdak does not say that voters are overestimating value of political importance. In fact Statement E is too Broad, it implies Voters in general prefer a candidate with non-political background. But in the question stem it is said that only a few people want this to happen (say for example 2), but statement E considers all of 10-for example. This is invalid implication. Siuzdak rather wants to say that Janeck is under the impression that Stevenson is not fit to be elected, just because few voters (a handful) want a candidate with political background, nothing is mentioned in the question stem about the remaining voters (Voters - Few) so statement E becomes too generalized and broad.
I think there were not only handful of voters.Infact there must be lots of voters and when there is less voters doesnt mean it is wrong...

Ok does those lines make sense to you.
excatly if those were my response to you answer then what do you understand about what i have understood from your answer.
Do you feel i have understood
that you are trying prove answer or E
or i have understood that you are trying to prove 'there must be handful of voters to prove something'.

I think same thing here.
We can digg answers but i dont see much logic.....
More over ok Janet point may be x won win
but Siuzdak never says 'No he will win'....rather she starts defending what she has understood janet is trying to prove.As per answer she have understood that experience is right...which she defends in her lines...
GMAT score is equally counted as your GPA and 78 clicks can change you life.
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 437
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 5:06 am
Location: India
Thanked: 50 times
Followed by:1 members
GMAT Score:580

by beat_gmat_09 » Fri Nov 12, 2010 9:22 am
frank1 wrote:
beat_gmat_09 wrote:
The question is to imply directly from the statements.
What Janeck thinks is - Stevenson will not win. Why ? Just Because few voters (say for example 2 out of 10) want a businessman without political experience to take the charge.
What Siuzdak thinks - Experience of running corpo is valuable to run govt, so no need of political bck.
Siuzdak does not say that voters are overestimating value of political importance. In fact Statement E is too Broad, it implies Voters in general prefer a candidate with non-political background. But in the question stem it is said that only a few people want this to happen (say for example 2), but statement E considers all of 10-for example. This is invalid implication. Siuzdak rather wants to say that Janeck is under the impression that Stevenson is not fit to be elected, just because few voters (a handful) want a candidate with political background, nothing is mentioned in the question stem about the remaining voters (Voters - Few) so statement E becomes too generalized and broad.
I think there were not only handful of voters.Infact there must be lots of voters and when there is less voters doesnt mean it is wrong...

Ok does those lines make sense to you.
excatly if those were my response to you answer then what do you understand about what i have understood from your answer.
Do you feel i have understood
that you are trying prove answer or E
or i have understood that you are trying to prove 'there must be handful of voters to prove something'.

I think same thing here.
We can digg answers but i dont see much logic.....
More over ok Janet point may be x won win
but Siuzdak never says 'No he will win'....rather she starts defending what she has understood janet is trying to prove.As per answer she have understood that experience is right...which she defends in her lines...
My understanding in CR implication/inference questions is to strictly stick to the information given in the statements, the answer option will state the same thing as in the question stem in a simple way, the option will not go beyond what is there in the statement. Think of this argument like this - If you were supposed to try for a job X and your friend Y would say that you don't have the type of experience for job X, but you (and the one who is recruiting you for job X) know that you had already done Job Z, whose experience will be used to do job X. Doesn't this mean that your friend Y is trying to
say that you are unfit for Job X ? Does this impact of you getting the Job X, just because your friend Y thinks that you are not fit, whereas your employer knows the importance of work experience of Job Z, which you had done earlier.
HTH.
Hope is the dream of a man awake
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1