Critical Reasoning

TEST A- Question 1

Mr. Janeck: I don't believe Stevenson will win the election for governor. Few voters are willing to elect a businessman with no political experience to such a responsible public office.
Ms. Siuzdak: You're wrong. The experience of running a major corporation is a valuable preparation for the task of running a state government.
M. Siuzdak's response shows that she has interpreted Mr. Janeck's remark to imply which of the following?
(A) Mr. Janeck considers Stevenson unqualified for the office of governor.
(B) No candidate without political experience has ever been elected governor of a state.
(C) Mr. Janeck believes that political leadership and business leadership are closely analogous.
(D) A career spent in the pursuit of profit can be an impediment to one's ability to run a state government fairly.
(E) Voters generally overestimate the value of political experience when selecting a candidate.

Can anyone provide me the answer for this question?? I am confused between options A and B

Definitely not B. Siuzdaks reply doesnt suggest that she thinks anything about the past of gorvernon elections.

I would take A but even C sounds a fair choice to me.

Option A sounds right IMO.Is the official answer available ?

IMO A

Mr. Janeck talks about political experience and suggest Stevenson is unqualified, in reply
Ms. Siuzda shows that he is qualified...

If Ms.Siuzda perceive what Op B suggest then his answer would be some data of past where a person with no political experience but a business become the governor..

The question itself worded a bit hard to interpret but it's easy once you decipher it. The question reads "M. Siuzdak's response shows that she has interpreted Mr. Janeck's remark to imply which of the following?" We are only concerned about J's remark and what it implies. So we can exclude any answers that doesn't relate J's remark. J states, "Mr. Janeck: I don't believe Stevenson will win the election for governor. Few voters are willing to elect a businessman with no political experience to such a responsible public office." J implies that a businessman is not fit to run a state. Thus the answer is A. C is a bit tempting, but it is what S implies. Hope it helped.

BTW, B is out of scope because the statement (conversation between J and S) doesn't refer anything to past records of former governors and their occupation prior to their election. In CR, it is important to stay within the scope of the statement. When making comparisons, it is sometimes necessary to look outside the scope, but this question is not making any comparison. The conversation focuses on why the candidate is fit or not fit to become a governor.

What an interesting type of question. This is something that you see on the LSAT and I have never heard of on the GMAT - but it is a fun one to try. I like the unusual ones because there is very little pressure since you will not see this on test day!

So what we are looking for here is not what Mr. Janke actually said, but what Siuzdak has misinterpreted him to have said.

"Shoot4greatness" has given a nice discussion here. As you can see when Siuzdak says, "you're wrong" he is not actually responding to Janke (Janke has said that Stevenson will not be elected) but instead Siuzdak is responding to the imagined comment that "Stevenson is not qualified."

B is indeed beyond what we need to say here - when Siuzdak says "you're wrong" he is not responding to any statement as general as "no candidate..." but is specific to Stevenson only.

thnx:)