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

Redeem
TTP OnDemand GMAT Video Course
Featured Course

Target Test Prep GMAT OnDemand

Scott Woodbury-Stewart’s private virtual classroom — 400 hours of master-class video lessons for the GMAT Focus Edition.

  • 715+ score guarantee — highest in the industry (99th percentile)
  • 52 chapters · 1,500+ lessons · 4,000+ practice questions
  • 400 hours of video · 1,500+ instructor-led HD smartboard lessons
  • 300,000+ students accepted to Harvard, Stanford, Wharton, Booth & Sloan & more
  • 24/7 live support + weekly Zoom office hours with GMAT instructors
  • TTP AI Assist — 24/7 AI-powered virtual tutor for instant help
  • 1,200+ flashcards + AI-powered study assistant & daily calendar
  • OnDemand, LiveTeach & GMAT Bootcamp formats available
  • Also: GRE, SAT Math & Executive Assessment courses
  • MBA Admissions Consulting now available
  • 🏆 2025 EdTech Breakthrough Award: Test Prep Solution Provider of the Year
  • 200,000+ students served
  • 5-day free trial — $0 to start, no auto-billing, cancel anytime
★★★★★ 5.0 (559 reviews)
130-pt guarantee
$0 to start then $127/mo
Start Free 5-Day Trial Read 559 Reviews →

women who ran for state and national offices

Expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 447
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2009 9:08 pm
Location: Kolkata,India
Thanked: 7 times
GMAT Score:670
by uptowngirl92 » Fri Aug 14, 2009 5:58 pm
Last year in the United States, women who ran for state and national offices were about as likely to win as men. However, only about fifteen percent of the candidates for these offices were women. Therefore, the reason there are so few women who win elections for these offices is not that women have difficulty winning elections but that so few women want to run.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the conclusion given?

(A) Last year the proportion of women incumbents who won reelection was smaller than the proportion of men incumbents who won reelection.
(B) Few women who run for state and national offices run against other women.
(C) Most women who have no strong desire to be politicians never run for state and national offices.
(D) The proportion of people holding local offices who are women is smaller than the proportion of people holding state and national offices who are women.
(E) Many more women than men who want to run for state and national offices do not because they cannot get adequate funding for their campaigns.
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 435
Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 3:55 am
Thanked: 17 times

by madhur_ahuja » Fri Aug 14, 2009 7:43 pm
IMO A
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Legendary Member
Posts: 1161
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 2:52 amFollowed by: 1 member
Location: Sydney
Thanked: 23 times

by mehravikas » Fri Aug 14, 2009 8:49 pm
IMO - E...explanation given below...!!

(A) Last year the proportion of women incumbents who won reelection was smaller than the proportion of men incumbents who won reelection. - close contender
(B) Few women who run for state and national offices run against other women. - irrelevant
(C) Most women who have no strong desire to be politicians never run for state and national offices. - strengthens the argument
(D) The proportion of people holding local offices who are women is smaller than the proportion of people holding state and national offices who are women. - irrelevant info
(E) Many more women than men who want to run for state and national offices do not because they cannot get adequate funding for their campaigns. - This options shows that more women than men want to run for elections but they are not able to because women do not get adequate funding.
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 228
Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2008 8:08 am
Thanked: 4 times

by jainrahul1985 » Sun Sep 19, 2010 6:24 pm
IMO E . Because we need to undermine that not the ability of women but someother reason why women can't win election .

I don't think A can be the answer . Please suggest
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 201
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2010 2:23 pmFollowed by: 1 member
Thanked: 7 times

by ov25 » Sun Sep 19, 2010 8:11 pm
A) last year women who won reelection -- too specific... we are dealing with likelihood of women winning elections in general
E - imo the right answer -- women are discouraged due to lack of funding rather than prospects of winning
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Legendary Member
Posts: 1119
Joined: Fri May 07, 2010 8:50 amFollowed by: 3 members
Thanked: 29 times

by diebeatsthegmat » Sun Sep 19, 2010 11:31 pm
uptowngirl92 wrote:Last year in the United States, women who ran for state and national offices were about as likely to win as men. However, only about fifteen percent of the candidates for these offices were women. Therefore, the reason there are so few women who win elections for these offices is not that women have difficulty winning elections but that so few women want to run.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the conclusion given?

(A) Last year the proportion of women incumbents who won reelection was smaller than the proportion of men incumbents who won reelection.
(B) Few women who run for state and national offices run against other women.
(C) Most women who have no strong desire to be politicians never run for state and national offices.
(D) The proportion of people holding local offices who are women is smaller than the proportion of people holding state and national offices who are women.
(E) Many more women than men who want to run for state and national offices do not because they cannot get adequate funding for their campaigns.
the conlusion is that the women dont want to run, not because they have difficult to win the position and we have to weaken this and E is what we need....E states another reason explain why they cant run for the position or E indirectly weaken the conclusion. E says the women actually want to run but the lack of money to run
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 866
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 6:46 pm
Location: Gwalior, India
Thanked: 31 times

by goyalsau » Mon Sep 20, 2010 4:42 am
Last year in the United States, women who ran for state and national offices were about as likely to win as men. However, only about fifteen percent of the candidates for these offices were women. Therefore, the reason there are so few women who win elections for these offices is not that women have difficulty winning elections but that so few women want to run.

Premise - Man and Women both have the same likely hood of winning the election.
Counter Premise - Currently women hold only 15% of those offices.

Conclusion - Not many women candidates for the election.

In all if there are 100 seats in the office. In all if there are 100 man and 100 women are competing in all for these seats
Now by the premises there should be 50 men and 50 women in the office. Because both have the same likely hood of winning.

To undermine this statement We have to show that there are not much women candidates who are competing the election.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the conclusion given?

(A) Last year the proportion of women incumbents who won reelection was smaller than the proportion of men incumbents who won reelection. We are not concerned with proportion of reelected candidates in last election. Out of Scope

(B) Few women who run for state and national offices run against other women. OUT OF SCOPE

(C) Most women who have no strong desire to be politicians never run for state and national offices. OUT OF SCOPE

(D) The proportion of people holding local offices who are women is smaller than the proportion of people holding state and national offices who are women. Just restating the statement of the argument. irrelevant

(E) Many more women than men who want to run for state and national offices do not because they cannot get adequate funding for their campaigns. It show the reason that why there are less women candidates in the election because they don't get the adequate funding. IN SCOPE
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
User avatar
MBA Student
Posts: 113
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 10:05 pm
Location: West Lafayette
Thanked: 1 times
GMAT Score:700

by g000fy » Mon Sep 20, 2010 6:20 am
Yep, its E

Dismiss A because it talks about re-election
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1