RC-99 passage 34. Threw me off

This topic has expert replies
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1077
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 1:44 am
Thanked: 118 times
Followed by:33 members
GMAT Score:710

RC-99 passage 34. Threw me off

by bblast » Sat May 21, 2011 2:19 am
While many points are worth making in an evaluation of the single six-year presidential term, one of the most telling points against the single term has not been advanced. This kind of constitutional limitation on elections is generally a product of systems with weak or non-existent political parties.
Since there is no party continuity or corporate party integrity in such systems, there is no basis for putting trust in the desire for re-election as a safeguard against mismanagement in the executive branch. Better under those conditions to operate on the basis of negative assumptions against incumbents. I do not know if the earliest proposal for a single, nonrepeatable term was made in the 1820s because that was a period of severely weak political parties. But I do feel confident that this is a major reason, if not the only reason, that such a proposal has been popular since the 1940s.
Though the association of the non-repeatable election with weak political parties is not in itself an argument against the limitation, the fallout from this association does contribute significantly to the negative argument. Single-term limitations are strongly associated with corruption. In any weak party system, including the presidential system, the onus of making deals and compromises, both shady and honourable, rests heavily upon individual candidates. Without some semblance of corporate integrity in a party, individual candidates have few opportunities to amortize their obligations across the spectrum of elective and appointive jobs and policy proposals. The deals tend to be personalized and the payoffs come home to roost accordingly.
If that situation is already endemic in conditions of weak or non-existent parties, adding to it the limitation against re-election means that candidates and officials, already prevented from amortizing their deals across space, are also unable to amortize their obligations temporally. This makes for a highly beleaguered situation. The single six-year term for presidents is an effort to compensate for the absence of a viable party system, but it is a compensation ultimately paid for by further weakening the party system itself.
Observers, especially foreign observers, have often noted that one source of weakness in American political parties is the certainty of election every two or four years, not only because any artificial limitation on elections is a violation of democratic principles but also because when elections are set in a certain and unchangeable cycle, political parties do not have to remain alert but can disappear into inactivity until a known point prior to the next election. To rigidify matters by going beyond the determinacy of the electoral cycle to add an absolute rule of one term would hang still another millstone around the neck of already doddering political parties.

1. Suppose that America adopted a single-term political system. Considering the foreign observers mentioned in the passage. how would they be expected to respond to such a development?
A. They would endorse it because it further strengthens American democracy.
B. They would condemn it because it further limits American democracy.
C. They would neither endorse nor condemn it.
D. They would condemn it because it gives the President too much power.
E. They would endorse it because it will reduce corruption


2. According to the passage, which of the following is most likely to be true of a political system with weak political parties?
A. Politicians appoint unqualified people to important posts.
B. Political parties favour frequent elections.
C. Political bargains are made by individual candidates.
D. Elections tend to occur with very great frequency.
E. It encourages politicians to be more honest

3. Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the author's claim about single-term political systems?
A. The discovery that foreign observers like this system
B. The discovery that most politicians are honest
C. The discovery that Americans dislike this system
D. The discovery that parliamentary systems are more democratic
E. The discovery that politicians favour such a system

BCB

This was an impossible RC for me, got only the 3rd answer correct. I was reminded of the last passage I faced on my GMAT-1 and screwd up big time.
Cheers !!

Quant 47-Striving for 50
Verbal 34-Striving for 40

My gmat journey :
https://www.beatthegmat.com/710-bblast-s ... 90735.html
My take on the GMAT RC :
https://www.beatthegmat.com/ways-to-bbla ... 90808.html
How to prepare before your MBA:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upz46D7 ... TWBZF14TKW_
Source: — Reading Comprehension |

User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 142
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 8:03 am
Thanked: 19 times

by krishnasty » Sat May 21, 2011 4:35 am
hey...
i agree that the passage is bad...so bad so that it like reading roman scriptures ( not that i have read any...:))
but the good part is that the questions are comparatively easy..would try my best to explain them..
bblast wrote:While many points are worth making in an evaluation of the single six-year presidential term, one of the most telling points against the single term has not been advanced. This kind of constitutional limitation on elections is generally a product of systems with weak or non-existent political parties.
Since there is no party continuity or corporate party integrity in such systems, there is no basis for putting trust in the desire for re-election as a safeguard against mismanagement in the executive branch. Better under those conditions to operate on the basis of negative assumptions against incumbents. I do not know if the earliest proposal for a single, nonrepeatable term was made in the 1820s because that was a period of severely weak political parties. But I do feel confident that this is a major reason, if not the only reason, that such a proposal has been popular since the 1940s.
Though the association of the non-repeatable election with weak political parties is not in itself an argument against the limitation, the fallout from this association does contribute significantly to the negative argument. Single-term limitations are strongly associated with corruption. In any weak party system, including the presidential system, the onus of making deals and compromises, both shady and honourable, rests heavily upon individual candidates. Without some semblance of corporate integrity in a party, individual candidates have few opportunities to amortize their obligations across the spectrum of elective and appointive jobs and policy proposals. The deals tend to be personalized and the payoffs come home to roost accordingly.
If that situation is already endemic in conditions of weak or non-existent parties, adding to it the limitation against re-election means that candidates and officials, already prevented from amortizing their deals across space, are also unable to amortize their obligations temporally. This makes for a highly beleaguered situation. The single six-year term for presidents is an effort to compensate for the absence of a viable party system, but it is a compensation ultimately paid for by further weakening the party system itself.
Observers, especially foreign observers, have often noted that one source of weakness in American political parties is the certainty of election every two or four years, not only because any artificial limitation on elections is a violation of democratic principles but also because when elections are set in a certain and unchangeable cycle, political parties do not have to remain alert but can disappear into inactivity until a known point prior to the next election. To rigidify matters by going beyond the determinacy of the electoral cycle to add an absolute rule of one term would hang still another millstone around the neck of already doddering political parties.

1. Suppose that America adopted a single-term political system. Considering the foreign observers mentioned in the passage. how would they be expected to respond to such a development?
(( for this question, focus on the last colored passage line. it says that one party system would create trouble for already troubled political system.Keeping this in mind, endorse options are off, leaving option B and D. now D can be ruled out because it's irrelevant. Hence, B))
A. They would endorse it because it further strengthens American democracy.
B. They would condemn it because it further limits American democracy.
C. They would neither endorse nor condemn it.
D. They would condemn it because it gives the President too much power.
E. They would endorse it because it will reduce corruption


2. According to the passage, which of the following is most likely to be true of a political system with weak political parties?
((Check out the lines in green. they are self explanatory. Hence, option C))
A. Politicians appoint unqualified people to important posts.
B. Political parties favour frequent elections.
C. Political bargains are made by individual candidates.
D. Elections tend to occur with very great frequency.
E. It encourages politicians to be more honest

3. Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the author's claim about single-term political systems?
((The main concern of the author is that one term system would introduce corruption and ineffectiveness in the entire system. But if it was to claim that politicians are honest and they would think only bout benefiting the country, the author's claim would be ruled out. Hence, option B))
A. The discovery that foreign observers like this system
B. The discovery that most politicians are honest
C. The discovery that Americans dislike this system
D. The discovery that parliamentary systems are more democratic
E. The discovery that politicians favour such a system

BCB

This was an impossible RC for me, got only the 3rd answer correct. I was reminded of the last passage I faced on my GMAT-1 and screwd up big time.
I hope they ans is much clear now..

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1077
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 1:44 am
Thanked: 118 times
Followed by:33 members
GMAT Score:710

by bblast » Sun May 22, 2011 2:20 am
Good one Krishna,

did u actually manage to cover this RC in good time and answer correctly in a time frame ?

I mean the grammar and the construction is extremely convoluted. I could not even make proper notes as it was hard to comprehend what message was the passage conveying. And I thought I was improving at RC. :/
Cheers !!

Quant 47-Striving for 50
Verbal 34-Striving for 40

My gmat journey :
https://www.beatthegmat.com/710-bblast-s ... 90735.html
My take on the GMAT RC :
https://www.beatthegmat.com/ways-to-bbla ... 90808.html
How to prepare before your MBA:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upz46D7 ... TWBZF14TKW_

User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 142
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 8:03 am
Thanked: 19 times

by krishnasty » Sun May 22, 2011 8:37 am
bblast wrote:Good one Krishna,

did u actually manage to cover this RC in good time and answer correctly in a time frame ?

I mean the grammar and the construction is extremely convoluted. I could not even make proper notes as it was hard to comprehend what message was the passage conveying. And I thought I was improving at RC. :/
The thing is that i scored extremely bad in my verbal in my GMAT..and since then, i was in shock..recovered lately. I have decided to understand the verbal section and not panic on the time issue. Hence, i didnt time this RC.
but nevertheless, i think i was able to solve it in appropriate amount of time.

Legendary Member
Posts: 586
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 4:38 am
Thanked: 31 times
Followed by:5 members
GMAT Score:730

by rohu27 » Sun May 22, 2011 4:45 pm
RC 99 passages are pain at times, donno even some of the easy ones turn me off.
i did this some tiem ago, saw my error log, 1st 2nd correct, time arnd 7 mins.
when i did the assage frm wht i vaguely remember, i could not understand fully wht it was saying, excpet for abt US presedential elections, its evaluation, wht observers thnk etc.
as someone pointed out earlier, i have seen in RC 99 passages that the passage is very complex, but the questions tend to be smpler. i have solved few passages whr in i had no idea(absolutely nothng) wht the passage says, but still managed to get few questions correct.
i dont knw how wrong this startegy may be, bt i feel on the real exam thr may e passgaes i may nt understand for genuine reasons or time/stress constraint. i shud still be able to make some educated guesses at the least.
HTH

User avatar
Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 12:17 pm

by sridhar.devaraj » Sat Jun 04, 2011 10:26 pm
this RC is really tough.. but as Krishna mentioned, if we concentrate on specifics, that will help to answer. I got the same answers as Krishna's.

Further, could any one help me to find the repository of these RC 99 passages? Pls..

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1325
Joined: Sun Nov 01, 2009 6:24 am
Thanked: 105 times
Followed by:14 members

by vikram4689 » Sun Jun 05, 2011 9:53 pm
Got the answers correct in 7:55 but not much convinced with Q1. I was confused b/w B & D and then B seem more close but honestly i could not find support for either of them in Passage. Anyone who could explain Q1.
Premise: If you like my post
Conclusion : Press the Thanks Button ;)