Critical Reasoning

Political Analyst: Because our city is a border city, illegal immigration is an important issue in the current race for mayor. Of the two candidates for mayor, one supports a plan that would attempt to deport the city’s 9,000 illegal immigrants and the other does not. Surveys consistently show that about 60% of the city’s residents are opposed to the plan, while about 35% are in support of the plan. Therefore, the candidate who does not support the plan will win the election for mayor.

All of the following statements weaken the analyst’s argument, EXCEPT:

In the city at issue, most voters make their voting decisions based on the candidates’ positions on abortion.

Of the 35% of residents who support the plan, some are willing to consider alternate plans for addressing illegal immigration.

Many of the residents who oppose the plan are not registered voters.

The candidate who supports the plan is the incumbent mayor, and has been elected to four consecutive terms despite taking controversial positions on many important issues.

Just under 30% of the city’s residents are illegal immigrants who cannot vote.

OA is B

In this case, the analyst's argument is that the candidate who does not support the plan will win the election for mayor, since 60% of the city's residents also oppose the plan.

Now we are looking for what does not weaken the above argument.

A) In the city at issue, most voters make their voting decisions based on the candidates’ positions on abortion.

No. In fact, this weakens the argument, because it states that voters will decide on issues unrelated to the immigration plan.

B) Of the 35% of residents who support the plan, some are willing to consider alternate plans for addressing illegal immigration.

Yes. This is irrelevant, and neither strengthens nor weakens the analyst's argument.

C) Many of the residents who oppose the plan are not registered voters.

No. This also weakens the argument since the 60% of city residents opposing the plan is irrelevant, if none are registered voters.

D) The candidate who supports the plan is the incumbent mayor, and has been elected to four consecutive terms despite taking controversial positions on many important issues.

No. This also weakens the argument because it suggests that the candidate who supports the plan could win even though he's taken a controversial stance.

E) Just under 30% of the city’s residents are illegal immigrants who cannot vote.

Again, this weakens the argument since logically, illegal immigrants would oppose the plan, but, as in C, that won't ensure a win, since illegal immigrants can't vote.

what's the source of this question?

myohmy, Thanks. Got the point.

aj5105, Its from OG 10.

No problem =) I got this question wrong the first time I did it -- all the double negatives ("do not oppose" and the like) were just screwing with my brain.

Why is it logical to assume that illegal immigrants are a part of the poll/survey? How is that, to use the GMAT's wording, a common sense assumption?

Well "city residents" implies "people who live in the city." There are 9000 illegal immigrants living in the city, therefore, they are city residents.

myohmy wrote:Well "city residents" implies "people who live in the city." There are 9000 illegal immigrants living in the city, therefore, they are city residents.

Thanks

It's pretty clear to be option B