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

Redeem

running for election against the incumbent

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 224
Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 2:44 pm
Location: Russia, Moscow
Thanked: 10 times
GMAT Score:730

running for election against the incumbent

by ranell » Mon Jun 08, 2009 12:33 pm
Amy McConnell is considering running for election against the incumbent, Gregory Lutz. If Lutz has a large campaign fund, then he is already far ahead, and McConnell will not run against him. If Lutz does not have a large campaign fund, McConnell will scrutinize Lutz’s record for any hints of scandal that she could use against him. Anything of a scandalous nature would increase McConnell’s chances of winning, and she would campaign for election. If Lutz has a clean record, however, McConnell will not run against him.
Given the information in the passage, which one of the following must be false?

(A) Lutz does not have a large campaign fund, and McConnell does not run against him.
(B) Lutz’s record contains items that would increase McConnell’s chances of winning, and she runs against him.
(C) Lutz’s record contains scandalous items, and McConnell does not run against him.
(D) Lutz’s record contains nothing that would increase McConnell’s chances of winning, and she runs against him.
(E) Lutz has a large campaign fund, and McConnell does not run against him.
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 154
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 12:55 pm
Thanked: 5 times
Followed by:1 members

Re: running for election against the incumbent

by vinaynp » Mon Jun 08, 2009 1:38 pm
ranell wrote:Amy McConnell is considering running for election against the incumbent, Gregory Lutz. If Lutz has a large campaign fund, then he is already far ahead, and McConnell will not run against him. If Lutz does not have a large campaign fund, McConnell will scrutinize Lutz’s record for any hints of scandal that she could use against him. Anything of a scandalous nature would increase McConnell’s chances of winning, and she would campaign for election. If Lutz has a clean record, however, McConnell will not run against him.
Given the information in the passage, which one of the following must be false?

(A) Lutz does not have a large campaign fund, and McConnell does not run against him.
(B) Lutz’s record contains items that would increase McConnell’s chances of winning, and she runs against him.
(C) Lutz’s record contains scandalous items, and McConnell does not run against him.
(D) Lutz’s record contains nothing that would increase McConnell’s chances of winning, and she runs against him.
(E) Lutz has a large campaign fund, and McConnell does not run against him.
IMO C) by the statement below:

"Anything of a scandalous nature would increase McConnell’s chances of winning, and she would campaign for election."
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 89
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 2:49 am
Thanked: 9 times

by SanjeevK » Mon Jun 08, 2009 1:38 pm
IMO D

If Lutz does not have a large campaign fund, he can have a clean record and McConnell will not run against him. Eliminate A

If Lutz has a scandalous record, McConnell will run against him. Eliminate B

If Lutz’s record contains scandalous items, McConnell would campaign for election. It doesn't necessarily mean that McConnell will run against Lutz. It simply tells that McConnell will compaign for election. Eliminate C

If Lutz has a large campaign fund, McConnell will not run against him.

Hope this helps
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 224
Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 2:44 pm
Location: Russia, Moscow
Thanked: 10 times
GMAT Score:730

by ranell » Mon Jun 08, 2009 2:04 pm
I also think that the answer is D. But I don't have OA
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 154
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 12:55 pm
Thanked: 5 times
Followed by:1 members

by vinaynp » Mon Jun 08, 2009 2:47 pm
ranell wrote:I also think that the answer is D. But I don't have OA
D) looks better.
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 434
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 9:48 pm
Location: Bangalore
Thanked: 6 times
GMAT Score:600

by viju9162 » Mon Jun 08, 2009 8:31 pm
D says that "Lutz’s record contains nothing that would increase McConnell’s chances of winning, and she runs against him.".

Lutz's record is pure, but still Amy runs against him. However, we are ruling out the possibility that Lutz might have large funds and can defeat Amy. Hence, D can be false! Because only when Lutz does not have large funds, Amy is thinking to scrutinize his image..

What do you think friends?
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 224
Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 2:44 pm
Location: Russia, Moscow
Thanked: 10 times
GMAT Score:730

by ranell » Tue Jun 09, 2009 2:25 am
viju9162 wrote:D says that "Lutz’s record contains nothing that would increase McConnell’s chances of winning, and she runs against him.".

Lutz's record is pure, but still Amy runs against him. However, we are ruling out the possibility that Lutz might have large funds and can defeat Amy. Hence, D can be false! Because only when Lutz does not have large funds, Amy is thinking to scrutinize his image..

What do you think friends?
Lutz's record is pure, so according to the statement Amy will not run against him as she has nothing to use against him in her campaign. Lutz can have a large fund, so Amy will not run against him too. But whether he has a small fund or can defeat him is out of scope
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 434
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 9:48 pm
Location: Bangalore
Thanked: 6 times
GMAT Score:600

by viju9162 » Tue Jun 09, 2009 7:46 am
ranell..thanks for the explaination
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 154
Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2009 10:02 pm
Thanked: 5 times
Followed by:3 members

Explanation

by turbo jet » Tue Jun 09, 2009 8:19 am
IMO: D

INFER QS

If Lutz does not have a large campaign fund:
2 cases arise
a. He will check record, find it clean and will not campaign
b. He will check record, find a scandal and will campaign

Answer Choice A: Eliminate as it tells us both a & b are possible.

Answer Choice B and E are true statements. So, eliminate

Now between Answer choice C& D which are both very close. Here we will eliminate C. Why?
Because Option C again gives us two possible scenarios a and b:

a. Lutz has a large campaign. Then has a scandal. In this case Mc Conell will not run against him because of his large campaign.
b. Lutz does not have a large campaign. There is a scandal. In this case Mc Conell will run against Lutz.

Therefore Answer D

Tip: If an answer choice is such that it gives us two possible scenarios, we must eliminate them.


Cheers!!!
Turbo Jet

:) :) :) :) :)
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 434
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 9:48 pm
Location: Bangalore
Thanked: 6 times
GMAT Score:600

Thanks Turbo jet

by viju9162 » Tue Jun 09, 2009 5:34 pm
Hi Turbo jet,

Thanks for the explaination :) . Following your explaination, don't you think D also gives rise to two scenarios...

-> His record is clean, but he may have large funds
-> His record is clean, but he may not have large funds

I also understood from ranell that having small or large funds is out of scope. But if I look from your prespective, it taunts me to think like this :).
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 154
Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2009 10:02 pm
Thanked: 5 times
Followed by:3 members

Re: Thanks Turbo jet

by turbo jet » Tue Jun 09, 2009 10:20 pm
viju9162 wrote:Hi Turbo jet,

Thanks for the explaination :) . Following your explaination, don't you think D also gives rise to two scenarios...

-> His record is clean, but he may have large funds
-> His record is clean, but he may not have large funds

I also understood from ranell that having small or large funds is out of scope. But if I look from your prespective, it taunts me to think like this :).

Hi Viju,

Glad you brought this new observation out.
Let me clarify why the 2 possible scenarios that you mentioned in Choice D is not possible.

a. His record is clean, but he may have large funds

If you read the qs stem properly, you will realise that Mc Conell will not check Lutz records if he has large funds. Mc Conell will check the records only when Lutz camapign funds are not large. Hence no possibility of this scenario arising.

Tip:In infer questions, paraphrase the argument in your own words and draw a quick diagram to clarify.

Hope this helps
Cheers!!
Turbo Jet

:)
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 434
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 9:48 pm
Location: Bangalore
Thanked: 6 times
GMAT Score:600

by viju9162 » Wed Jun 10, 2009 2:43 am
Thanks turbo jet :)
"Native of" is used for a individual while "Native to" is used for a large group
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 154
Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2009 10:02 pm
Thanked: 5 times
Followed by:3 members

Re: Thanks Turbo jet

by turbo jet » Wed Jun 10, 2009 3:11 am
turbo jet wrote:
viju9162 wrote:Hi Turbo jet,

Thanks for the explaination :) . Following your explaination, don't you think D also gives rise to two scenarios...

-> His record is clean, but he may have large funds
-> His record is clean, but he may not have large funds

I also understood from ranell that having small or large funds is out of scope. But if I look from your prespective, it taunts me to think like this :).
Hi Viju,

Also I would like to clarify your earlier query. It is not about large funds and small funds. We look at it from the perspective of large funds and no funds


Cheers!!
Turbo Jet
Top
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 22
Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 5:06 am

by ajay_deepak » Thu Jun 11, 2009 1:19 am
Isn't it that the scrutiny comes only when the funds are small. So in D, one can know whether his record is clean only after knowing that he has less funds. Less funds thus scrutiny but clean record hence she won't compete. Any review on this?

I guess C makes sense. What is the OA?
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 752
Joined: Sun May 17, 2009 11:04 pm
Location: Tokyo
Thanked: 81 times
GMAT Score:680

Re: running for election against the incumbent

by tohellandback » Thu Jun 11, 2009 1:30 am
ranell wrote:Amy McConnell is considering running for election against the incumbent, Gregory Lutz. If Lutz has a large campaign fund, then he is already far ahead, and McConnell will not run against him. If Lutz does not have a large campaign fund, McConnell will scrutinize Lutz’s record for any hints of scandal that she could use against him. Anything of a scandalous nature would increase McConnell’s chances of winning, and she would campaign for election. If Lutz has a clean record, however, McConnell will not run against him.
Given the information in the passage, which one of the following must be false?

(A) Lutz does not have a large campaign fund, and McConnell does not run against him.
(B) Lutz’s record contains items that would increase McConnell’s chances of winning, and she runs against him.
(C) Lutz’s record contains scandalous items, and McConnell does not run against him.
(D) Lutz’s record contains nothing that would increase McConnell’s chances of winning, and she runs against him.
(E) Lutz has a large campaign fund, and McConnell does not run against him.
IMO D,
A) may be Lutz is clean
B)of course
C) Lutz has a large campaign fund
E)of course
The powers of two are bloody impolite!!
Top
Post new topic Post Reply