Critical Reasoning

In a Poll conducted by interviewing eligible voters in their homes just before the recent election, incumbent candidate kenner was significantly ahead of candidate muratori nonetheless muratori won the recent election.which one of the if true most helps to resolve the apparent discrepancy decribed by the statements above ?
a) the positions taken by muratori and kenner on many election issues wre not very similar to each other
b)kenner had held elected office for many years before the recent election
c)in the year leading upto the election kenner was implicated in a series of political scandals
d)6 months before the recent election the voting age was lowered by 3 years
e)in the poll, supporters of moratori were more likely than others to describe the election as important

OK Guys Hold on ..
I havethe OA and it is E . Not D. Now i am not the only 1 who chose d, there are 2 more guys. So This post is now up for some expert opinion . So lets wait and see what an expert has to say it.In the meanwhile BTG Members can try this LSAT CR out . but since i already know the OA and have found out a way to justify the OA , there is no point throwing up IMOs and IMOS.(IMO Solution)

Assuming that fight is between C and D. A, B and E can be removed.

Situation: K was ahead of M before the election.
Normally this means: K would the election
But instead: M won the election

C: If K was involved in series of political scandals in past years, but he/she was still ahead of M. Does not explain.
D: If we increase the pool of eligible voters than chances are that we introduced new voters who were against K.

IMO D

+1 for D in 1.09sec

Opinion : interviewed voters have hyped...

D says interviewed voters are not in the list...

OK Guys Hold on ..
I havethe OA and it is E . Not D. Now i am not the only 1 who chose d, there are 2 more guys. So This post is now up for some expert opinion . So lets wait and see what an expert has to say it.In the meanwhile BTG Members can try this LSAT CR out . but since i already know the OA and have found out a way to justify the OA , there is no point throwing up IMOs and IMOS.(IMO Solution)

I have to blame myself for not sticking to my opinion, but, I was expecting a very minor modification in E

E says candidates are hyping election but I was expecting candidates were hyping incumbent candidate kenner
I am not able to bring sync btw election and kenner

HSPA wrote:I have to blame myself for not sticking to my opinion, but, I was expecting a very minor modification in E

E says candidates are hyping election but I was expecting candidates were hyping incumbent candidate kenner
I am not able to bring sync btw election and kenner

Ni E does not involve hyping the election

mundasingh123 wrote:

HSPA wrote:I have to blame myself for not sticking to my opinion, but, I was expecting a very minor modification in E

E says candidates are hyping election but I was expecting candidates were hyping incumbent candidate kenner
I am not able to bring sync btw election and kenner

Ni E does not involve hyping the election

Kindly provide OE munda... I want strong explanation on what is E

HSPA wrote:

mundasingh123 wrote:

HSPA wrote:I have to blame myself for not sticking to my opinion, but, I was expecting a very minor modification in E

E says candidates are hyping election but I was expecting candidates were hyping incumbent candidate kenner
I am not able to bring sync btw election and kenner

Ni E does not involve hyping the election

Kindly provide OE munda... I want strong explanation on what is E

That is why i PMed an Expert

mundasingh123 wrote:In a Poll conducted by interviewing eligible voters in their homes just before the recent election, incumbent candidate kenner was significantly ahead of candidate muratori nonetheless muratori won the recent election.which one of the if true most helps to resolve the apparent discrepancy decribed by the statements above ?
a) the positions taken by muratori and kenner on many election issues wre not very similar to each other
b)kenner had held elected office for many years before the recent election
c)in the year leading upto the election kenner was implicated in a series of political scandals
d)6 months before the recent election the voting age was lowered by 3 years
e)in the poll, supporters of moratori were more likely than others to describe the election as important

OK Guys Hold on ..
I havethe OA and it is E . Not D. Now i am not the only 1 who chose d, there are 2 more guys. So This post is now up for some expert opinion . So lets wait and see what an expert has to say it.In the meanwhile BTG Members can try this LSAT CR out . but since i already know the OA and have found out a way to justify the OA , there is no point throwing up IMOs and IMOS.(IMO Solution)

I think you're missing out on the fact that the poll was made just before the election. To resolve the paradox, we're looking for something that happened in the short time between the poll and the election day itself, including something that happened on the election day. Anything that happened 6 months ago (D) or years ago (B and C) is irrelevant: the poll takes a snapshot of the way things lie just before the elecgtion, and should already take previous factors into account.

It also, btw, include A: the positions of the two candidate are presumably known way before the poll is taken, and the poll results should reflect the difference between them. If A has said "One of the candidates changed his own positions radically just before the election", that would explain why the election results differed from the poll results - the poll was taking a snapshot of a different picture then.

E supplies the beginning of an explanation as to why the election results were different from the poll results, even though the poll was taken close to the election: If the Moratori people classified the election as important more than others, they are more likely than others to actually show up on election and vote, thus skewing the election results compared to the poll results. It's not perfect, and it misses a string of steps before it can actually explain the paradox, but it's the least worst of the answer choices given, and it "most helps to resolve the apparent discrepancy ".

Hi Geva,Thanks for Intervening
But we dont know how many months ago can be called recent .
if the elections are held every 4 years and as we know Campaigning for elections starts off 2 years or so in advance, 6 months seems to be a very short period before the elections in comparison with the period between the start of the campaign and the holding of election of polls.
Geva , This CR appears more of a test of Lateral Thinking . Is this represenative of GMAT . Can we expect to see something of this sort on GMAT . I just pondered a bit of Option E before dismissing it .It wasnt even among the probable answers to me

mundasingh123 wrote:Hi Geva,Thanks for Intervening
But we dont know how many months ago can be called recent .
if the elections are held every 4 years and as we know Campaigning for elections starts off 2 years or so in advance, 6 months seems to be a very short period before the elections in comparison with the period between the start of the campaign and the holding of election of polls.
Geva , This CR appears more of a test of Lateral Thinking . Is this represenative of GMAT . Can we expect to see something of this sort on GMAT . I just pondered a bit of Option E before dismissing it .It wasnt even among the probable answers to me

Sorry to disappoint you, but I believe this question is within the GMAT parameters - I can see myself writing something similiar. You might have a point that the question stem can do a better job of defining when the poll was taken, as that is the crucial point and reason to eliminate D. In order to avoid having the question disputed by arguments such as yours, the GMAC is likely to explicitly use "a poll conducted x months before the election" (where x<6) to show that the poll was conducted after the events described in D and already takes them into account.

mundasingh123 wrote:In a Poll conducted by interviewing eligible voters in their homes just before the recent election, incumbent candidate kenner was significantly ahead of candidate muratori nonetheless muratori won the recent election.which one of the if true most helps to resolve the apparent discrepancy decribed by the statements above ?
a) the positions taken by muratori and kenner on many election issues wre not very similar to each other
b)kenner had held elected office for many years before the recent election
c)in the year leading upto the election kenner was implicated in a series of political scandals
d)6 months before the recent election the voting age was lowered by 3 years
e)in the poll, supporters of moratori were more likely than others to describe the election as important

OK Guys Hold on ..
I havethe OA and it is E . Not D. Now i am not the only 1 who chose d, there are 2 more guys. So This post is now up for some expert opinion . So lets wait and see what an expert has to say it.In the meanwhile BTG Members can try this LSAT CR out . but since i already know the OA and have found out a way to justify the OA , there is no point throwing up IMOs and IMOS.(IMO Solution)

I received a PM asking me to comment.

Fact 1: In a poll conducted just before the election, Kenner was significantly ahead of Muratori.

Fact 2: Muratori won the election.

We need an answer choice that explains how both facts can be true.

Answer choice D:
Lowering the voting age 6 months ago -- prior both to the poll conducted...just before the election and to the election itself -- could explain one of the facts above but not the other. The lowered voting age could explain why Kenner was ahead in the poll (young people preferred Kenner) or why Moraturi won the election (young people preferred Muratori), but it does not explain why the poll results differed from the election results. Eliminate D.

Answer choice E:
If the poll showed that Moraturi voters were more likely to consider the election important, the implication is that the Moraturi supporters were more likely to vote. This fact would explain why the poll results differed from the election results: whereas the Kenner supporters stayed home because they didn't consider the election important, the Muratori supporters actually voted.

The correct answer is E.

d)6 months before the recent election the voting age was lowered by 3 years

Hi Mitch , when the survey was conducted before the change in voting age , majority of the voters voted for Kenner but with the lowering of voting age , a lot of new people who favoured muratori became eligible to vote .If this case is tru then , isnt the conclusion weakened.

mundasingh123 wrote:

d)6 months before the recent election the voting age was lowered by 3 years

Hi Mitch , when the survey was conducted before the change in voting age , majority of the voters voted for Kenner but with the lowering of voting age , a lot of new people who favoured muratori became eligible to vote .If this case is tru then , isnt the conclusion weakened.

The passage contains neither a conclusion nor an assumption. There is nothing to strengthen or weaken. The passage simply presents two facts that seem to contradict each other: Kenner was ahead in the poll conducted just before the election, but Muratori won the election. The correct answer must explain how both of these facts can be true.

If the events in answer choice D were reversed -- if the poll had been conducted before the voting age was lowered -- then the lowered voting age could explain why the election results differed from the poll results. But the wording in the passage and in D makes the ordering very clear: the voting age was lowered 6 months ago, whereas the poll was conducted just before the election. 6 months ago clearly is earlier than just before the election. A lowering of the voting age 6 months ago -- before both the poll and the election -- could not explain why the poll results differed from the election results.

Only answer choice E explains why the poll results differed from the election results: the Muratori supporters considered the election more important than did the Kenner supporters, implying that more Muratori supporters than Kenner supporters actually voted.

So GmatGuru, From the phrase "just before the election " we must interpret the meaning that there was no gap/days between the poll and the election.