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

Redeem

verbal review question

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 318
Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2009 3:55 am
Thanked: 12 times

verbal review question

by nikhilkatira » Sat Jul 17, 2010 6:23 am
Journalist: Well-known businessman Arnold Bergeron has long been popular in the state, and he has often talked about running for governor, but he has never run. However, we have just learned that Bergeron has fulfilled the financial disclosure requirement for candidacy by submitting a detailed list of his current financial holdings to the election commission. So, it is very likely that Bergeron will be a candidate for governor this year.

The answer to which of the following questions would be most useful in evaluating the journalist's argument?

A.Has anybody else who has fulfilled the financial disclosure requirement for the upcoming election reported greater financial holdings than Bergeron?

B.Is submitting a list of holdings the only way to fulfill the election commission's financial disclosure requirements?

C.Did the information recently obtained by the journalists come directly from the election commission?

D.Have Bergeron's financial holdings increased in value in recent years?

E.Had Bergeron also fulfilled the financial disclosure requirements for candidacy before any previous gubernatorial elections?

[spoiler]Please don't explain using verbal review's reasoning....[/spoiler]
Best,
Nikhil H. Katira
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 357
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 8:31 pm
Thanked: 128 times
Followed by:7 members

by grockit_andrea » Sat Jul 17, 2010 6:53 am
I'd say E is the correct answer. The journalist's argument boils down to a projected cause-and-effect: Bergeron filled out the financial disclosure, and therefore he will probably run for governor. E would break down that causal link, because if Bergeron has filled out the disclosure before other elections and then not run (and we know he hasn't run for governor in any previous elections, because the first sentence tells us that's true), it becomes less likely that filling out the disclosure this time is a guarantee of candidacy.
We can eliminate other answers: A and D talk about the value of the financial holdings, which is irrelevant. C could have some bearing on the reliability of the information, but that's not necessarily the case; what if the information came directly from Bergeron or a representative for Bergeron? The answer to C isn't dispositive to this issue here. B doesn't matter, because even if there are other ways to fulfill the disclosure requirement, Bergeron has chosen to fulfill it this way, and that's all we need to know.
The crux of the argument is that link between the disclosure and candidacy, and only E provides a way to weaken that link.
Andrea A.
Grockit Tutor
https://www.grockit.com
Top
User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 1052
Joined: Fri May 21, 2010 1:30 am
Thanked: 335 times
Followed by:98 members

by Patrick_GMATFix » Sat Jul 17, 2010 6:56 am
Hi Nikhil,

Premise: Bergeron has talked about running before but has never run. Recently he disclosed his finances, a pre-requisite to running.

Conclusion: B. will run this time.

Prediction: Evaluating the argument requires recognizing the assumptions made and finding the answer that tells you whether the assumptions are valid. To make his argument, the author equates the disclosure with the intent to run. To evaluate the argument, find the answer that tells us whether this equation is valid.

(A) This fails to link disclosure to the intent to run. Whether B is the richest is out of scope.

(B) The argument's premise is that the requirement is fulfilled, so he will run. Whether there are other ways to fulfill this requirement is out of scope. Besides, this answer fails to link financial disclosure to the intent to run.

(C) This is a trap answer. We already know for a fact that B has disclosed his finances and met the requirement for candidacy. Because this is provided as a premise, whether the information is accurate is not the issue.

(D) Whether B has gotten richer or poorer over the years doesn't help us evaluate the argument. We know that the requirement for candidacy is met. The issue is not whether he has enough money to succeed. That is out of scope.

(E) Correct. The author's argument relies on equating financial disclosure with the intent to run. If in the past, B had disclosed finances but not run, we would know that the assumption that financial disclosre=intent to run is incorrect. This would allow us to evaluate the argument.

To practice similar difficult questions, set topic='CR Evaluate' and difficulty='600-700 & 700+' in the Drill Generator.

Hope that's helpful,
-Patrick
  • Ask me about tutoring.
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 318
Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2009 3:55 am
Thanked: 12 times

by nikhilkatira » Sat Jul 17, 2010 8:19 am
Patrick_GMATFix wrote:Hi Nikhil,

Premise: Bergeron has talked about running before but has never run. Recently he disclosed his finances, a pre-requisite to running.

Conclusion: B. will run this time.

Prediction: Evaluating the argument requires recognizing the assumptions made and finding the answer that tells you whether the assumptions are valid. To make his argument, the author equates the disclosure with the intent to run. To evaluate the argument, find the answer that tells us whether this equation is valid.

(A) This fails to link disclosure to the intent to run. Whether B is the richest is out of scope.

(B) The argument's premise is that the requirement is fulfilled, so he will run. Whether there are other ways to fulfill this requirement is out of scope. Besides, this answer fails to link financial disclosure to the intent to run.

(C) This is a trap answer. We already know for a fact that B has disclosed his finances and met the requirement for candidacy. Because this is provided as a premise, whether the information is accurate is not the issue. Journalist says " we have just learned "

(D) Whether B has gotten richer or poorer over the years doesn't help us evaluate the argument. We know that the requirement for candidacy is met. The issue is not whether he has enough money to succeed. That is out of scope.

(E) Correct. The author's argument relies on equating financial disclosure with the intent to run. If in the past, B had disclosed finances but not run, we would know that the assumption that financial disclosre=intent to run is incorrect. This would allow us to evaluate the argument.

To practice similar difficult questions, set topic='CR Evaluate' and difficulty='600-700 & 700+' in the Drill Generator.

Hope that's helpful,
-Patrick
Best,
Nikhil H. Katira
Top
User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 1052
Joined: Fri May 21, 2010 1:30 am
Thanked: 335 times
Followed by:98 members

by Patrick_GMATFix » Sat Jul 17, 2010 8:34 am
Nikhil,

You are focusing on a red herring (a trap). The source of the journalists' information is still not the issue. The argument made is that given this information (that Bergeron has disclosed his finances thus meeting candidacy requirements) we can conclude that he will run. Evaluating the argument means figuring out whether the assumption made (the link between the premise and the conclusion) is valid. Whether the Journalists' info is from a good source is besides the point. Question is: Is it correct to conclude that there is cause & effect between B disclosing his finances and B running for governor? The answer to E would help us evaluate this claim.

-Patrick
  • Ask me about tutoring.
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 318
Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2009 3:55 am
Thanked: 12 times

by nikhilkatira » Sat Jul 17, 2010 9:22 am
Patrick_GMATFix wrote:Nikhil,

You are focusing on a red herring (a trap). The source of the journalists' information is still not the issue. The argument made is that given this information (that Bergeron has disclosed his finances thus meeting candidacy requirements) we can conclude that he will run. Evaluating the argument means figuring out whether the assumption made (the link between the premise and the conclusion) is valid. Whether the Journalists' info is from a good source is besides the point. Question is: Is it correct to conclude that there is cause & effect between B disclosing his finances and B running for governor? The answer to E would help us evaluate this claim.

-Patrick
Thanks Patrick

Your information is useful.
Best,
Nikhil H. Katira
Top
User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 1052
Joined: Fri May 21, 2010 1:30 am
Thanked: 335 times
Followed by:98 members

by Patrick_GMATFix » Sat Jul 17, 2010 10:01 am
*thumbs up @ Nikhil
  • Ask me about tutoring.
Top
User avatar
Community Manager
Posts: 1048
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 3:26 am
Location: India
Thanked: 51 times
Followed by:27 members
GMAT Score:670

by arora007 » Sun Jul 18, 2010 8:18 pm
E.... yes...its E... :)
https://www.skiponemeal.org/
https://twitter.com/skiponemeal
Few things are impossible to diligence & skill.Great works are performed not by strength,but by perseverance

pm me if you find junk/spam/abusive language, Lets keep our community clean!!
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1