knewton cr-3

[pradeepkaushal9518]

ParkSpaces, a lobbying group that wants to convince Councilman X to change his mind and vote for an ordinance that will fund additional park land, is planning additional measures to pressure the Councilman to vote in its favor. ParkSpaces strategists are considering adopting as their principal new tactic the threat to withdraw all monetary support and public endorsements from any candidate in Councilman X's political party, the National Party, in the next election.

The answer to which of the following questions is LEAST directly relevant to the strategists' consideration of whether threatening to withdraw support and money will convince Councilman X to vote in favor of the bill?

A Would a loss of funds and endorsements from ParkSpaces have a negative effect on National Party politicians, and if so, to what degree?
B Does the National Party have significant influence or control over Councilman X's voting behavior?
C Have other lobbying groups won votes from reluctant councilmen using strategies similar to the one ParkSpaces intends to employ in this situation?
D Have ParkSpaces public endorsements and monetary support for the National Party been a significant contributor to that party's success in the past?
E What proportion of National Party leaders have changed their voting behavior in the past with regard to similar park funding ordinances?

[rishab1988]

My answer E.

What is the OA?

Will give an explanation after I take a shower.

[BellTheGMAT]

ParkSpaces, a lobbying group that wants to convince Councilman X to change his mind and vote for an ordinance that will fund additional park land, is planning additional measures to pressure the Councilman to vote in its favor. ParkSpaces strategists are considering adopting as their principal new tactic the threat to withdraw all monetary support and public endorsements from any candidate in Councilman X's political party, the National Party, in the next election.

The answer to which of the following questions is LEAST directly relevant to the strategists' consideration of whether threatening to withdraw support and money will convince Councilman X to vote in favor of the bill?

A Would a loss of funds and endorsements from ParkSpaces have a negative effect on National Party politicians, and if so, to what degree?
B Does the National Party have significant influence or control over Councilman X's voting behavior?
C Have other lobbying groups won votes from reluctant councilmen using strategies similar to the one ParkSpaces intends to employ in this situation?
D Have ParkSpaces public endorsements and monetary support for the National Party been a significant contributor to that party's success in the past?
E What proportion of National Party leaders have changed their voting behavior in the past with regard to similar park funding ordinances?

IMO C.. wats the OA?

[rishab1988]

As promised.Here is my explanation.BTW i request that you post the OA's on your other questions and this question.I feel its not right that you keep the posters on those questions hanging for answers.

Okay back to this question

Conclusion : Threatening to withdraw support and money will convince Councilman X to vote in favor of the bill

Evidence :

ParkSpaces, a lobbying group that wants to convince Councilman X to change his mind and vote for an ordinance that will fund additional park land, is planning additional measures to pressure the Councilman to vote in its favor

ParkSpaces strategists are considering adopting as their principal new tactic the threat to withdraw all monetary support and public endorsements from any candidate in Councilman X's political party, the National Party, in the next election.

So basically the conclusion assumes that withdrawing support and money from the Councilman X's party will force that councilman to vote in the favor of the lobbying group.

A) This clearly relevant.If withdrawing funding will have a very negative effect on the Party,The Councilman X is very likely to vote in favor.(In such questions you can bring outside world knowledge and logic).If someone were to withdraw funding from your party and it will have a sever impact on your party,you will likely vote in his favor.

B) If the National party has a huge influence on the councilman X's behavior,withdrawing funding full make the party to force this councilman to vote in favor of the group.

C) I agree that C is a bit iffy.In real world sense,I would still take this as relevant.If I know others too have forced reluctant councilman by employing similar strategies my morale will be boosted.I will think it is more likely to happen.
For eg: If I hear that other people who too have studied MGMAT strategy guides,like me, have scored 750 on GMAT. I will think my chances are good too.[remember in such questions your logic should be a little looser]

D) If I know that the lobbying group contributes almost 80% to the success of this party.It is quite likely that I will force the councilman to vote in my favor.

E) This is similar to C,but with once exception,it talks about other councilmen.The councilmen talked about in C were reluctant councilmen just as Mr. X is. Also,even if 90% of the councilmen changed their voting behavior in the past on similar ordinances,it has no effect because the only vote that counts is X's vote.

[vamsi_567]

I normally follow the below approach for these types of Questions.

All the Answer choices that say "YES/NO" shall be directly relevant to the Argument. Any Answer choice that is descriptive can be avoided.


A Would a loss of funds and endorsements from ParkSpaces have a negative effect on National Party politicians, and if so, to what degree? ...can be a YES/No
B Does the National Party have significant influence or control over Councilman X's voting behavior? ..can be a YES/No
C Have other lobbying groups won votes from reluctant councilmen using strategies similar to the one ParkSpaces intends to employ in this situation?...can be a YES/No
D Have ParkSpaces public endorsements and monetary support for the National Party been a significant contributor to that party's success in the past? ...can be a YES/No
E What proportion of National Party leaders have changed their voting behavior in the past with regard to similar park funding ordinances?..the answer to this Q wud b some number or percentage..ex 25% of National Party leaders have changed their voting behavior in the past with regard to similar park funding ordinances..

IMO Ans = E
Wats the OA?

[David@VeritasPrep]

I got a PM asking me to reply to this one...

Yet it seems there is no need! Vamsi_567 and rishab1988 have given great explanations here!

As this is a LEAST relevant question you want to use process of elimination. You want to eliminate those choices that do provide directly relevant evidence. That is what the two postings above have done.

This is adapted from an Official GMAT question and the answer Should be E.

Nice job guys!

[ankurmit]

i AM CONFUSED BETWEEN C AND E

Please post OA

[pradeepkaushal9518]

i think rishab you should mind before you write. i dont have oa right now and i give evrybody a chance to participite, to think , to discuss and get involved because gmat is not so easy and every question has a trick.

i promise i wont post oa onwards if i find your post in that topic.

i will give oa only to those who will give me pm for all knewton topics