doubt CR 1

[aditya8062]

The state legislature has proposed a law that would require registered voters to bring photo ID with them to polling places. The law is intended to curb potential fraud by preventing anyone else from voting under a registered voter's name. A 2004 survey found that the names of over 1,500 people who had died were still on voter rolls, and another 672 people were still listed as registered voters even though they had either moved out of the state or lost the right to vote due to felony conviction.

Which of the following, if true, is the best piece of evidence to support the adoption of the proposed law?
A) A law from a neighboring state requiring citizens to show photo ID before they can register to vote, eliminating the need for them to bring ID to polling places.
B) Data from the latest census showing that only two-thirds of the people in the state are registered voters.
C) Evidence from a survey demonstrating that a percentage of minorities living in cities do not have photo ID.
D) Proof that absentee ballots from the last election had been misplaced.
E) A survey showing that over the five years previous to the survey votes were recorded for a percentage of people who had died or moved out of state.

[David@VeritasPrep]

This is a great question with real life implications in the U.S.

Many states are moving toward this type of voter I.D. law and the cite these same statistics. They say that there are deceased people whose names are still on the voter lists. But what does that prove? Voter fraud is the act of pretending to be someone else in order to actually vote. Just the names on a list is not fraud it is a clerical error. It is like when a person moves and his old address is still listed on some accounts. That is not fraud it just takes a while to update these things.

Actual voter fraud requires that someone goes in to vote in the name of another person. For example, someone goes in and tries to say that they are Bob Smith, who recently died and whose name is still on the voter roles. THAT is voter fraud.

Without the person attempting to vote there is no fraud. Citing the fact that there are names on the list and equating that with fraud is like saying that in the U.S. candy and soda are located on open shelves that are easily accessed by customers and conclude that there must be a certain level of shoplifting. Shoplifting is not the fact that the candy is easy to reach, it is actually taking the candy and attempting to leave the store without paying.

The voter I.D. laws in the U.S. have been passed in the absence of any evidence of widespread fraud. Those laws are designed for another purpose that we need not discuss here.

So this question is "ripped from the headlines!" So you can see why and how it was written...And you can already see the correct answer. The answer is E. You need actual proof of fraud or attempted fraud.

By the way, those in the U.S. do not forget to vote on November 4th! And be sure to bring your I.D. just in case.

[aditya8062]

thanks for your reply
but the language of E seems to suggest other way round

E says: A survey showing that over the five years previous to the survey votes were recorded for a percentage of people who had died or moved out of state.----->here the bold portion (in black) is referring to the survey mentioned in the passage. so "another survey" (in red) was done over the five year previous to this survey. it might be a case that over those previous 5 years those people might have been actually there. so that voting might still be legal!!

David: So this question is "ripped from the headlines!" So you can see why and how it was written...And you can already see the correct answer. The answer is E. You need actual proof of fraud or attempted fraud.

imagine a situation like this -----> vote was recorded from MR X in the year 1999 (he himself made that vote) then he moved to some other city in the year 2002 .NOW in 2004 another survey (the one mentioned in the passage) is conducted and and his name is still there in the list (may be the list is not updated) . HOW does the presence of his name in the list is a proof of fraud or attempted fraud. ? i would have called it an attempted fraud had some other person actually voted under the name of MR X

[prachi18oct]

I don't think the survey refers to the one mentioned in the premise. We are just told that a survey, which analysed the data from previous five years, indicates that votes were cast for deceased people or people who moved out. So, it provides us evidence that such fraudulent votes have been cast in the past and hence the proposal will be prove effective if brought in action.

David Can you please clarify?

[aditya8062]

I don't think the survey refers to the one mentioned in the premise. We are just told that a survey, which analysed the data from previous five years, indicates that votes were cast for deceased people or people who moved out. So, it provides us evidence that such fraudulent votes have been cast in the past and hence the proposal will be prove effective if brought in action.

you are right it does not refer to the survey mentioned in the passage (in fact this is what i have pointed out in my last post) ALSO it would be a big assumption if u assume that those votes( in the new survey) were cast for deceased people or people who moved out. please read the situation i have referenced in my previous post

[prachi18oct]

here the bold portion (in black) is referring to the survey mentioned in the passage.

According to me the bold portion(in black) is not referring to the survey mentioned in the passage. It refers to the same survey mentioned in option E. The language it is pretty confusing as we have surveys in hand. I understand it as below:-

Another survey shows that over the previous five years , there were % of votes cast in the name of deceased people( we know that they died before the voting dates) or moved out people.

[aditya8062]

According to me the bold portion(in black) is not referring to the survey mentioned in the passage. It refers to the same survey mentioned in option E

NO this is not the correct interpretation. please read the "THE SURVEY" (the one in black bold) -----> the "THE" refers to the one mentioned somewhere earlier in the passage

[GMATGuruNY]

imagine a situation like this -----> vote was recorded from MR X in the year 1999 (he himself made that vote) then he moved to some other city in the year 2002 .NOW in 2004 another survey (the one mentioned in the passage) is conducted and and his name is still there in the list (may be the list is not updated) . HOW does the presence of his name in the list is a proof of fraud or attempted fraud. ? i would have called it an attempted fraud had some other person actually voted under the name of MR X

E: Votes WERE RECORDED for people who HAD DIED OR MOVED out of state.
Here, the usage of the past perfect (had + VERBed) implies that Alan, Bobby and Cindy HAD already DIED OR MOVED out of state when their votes WERE RECORDED.
In another words:
On election day, when votes by Alan, Bobby and Cindy were recorded -- the three FORMER RESIDENTS were all either deceased or living in another state.
A clear indication of voter fraud.

[aditya8062]

Thanks Guru
perfect !!

[shantanuchandra]

B) Data from the latest census showing that only two-thirds of the people in the state are registered voters.
Why is B not an option.
This states that only 2/3 are registered voters. Thus, it leads to 1/3 being non-registered, against whom the fraudulent votes can be put.

[GMATGuruNY]

B) Data from the latest census showing that only two-thirds of the people in the state are registered voters.
Why is B not an option.
This states that only 2/3 are registered voters. Thus, it leads to 1/3 being non-registered, against whom the fraudulent votes can be put.

From the passage:
The law is intended to curb potential fraud by preventing anyone else from voting under a REGISTERED VOTER'S name.

B: Data from the latest census showing that only two-thirds of the people in the state are registered voters.
The ratio of registered to non-registered voters tells us nothing about whether the names of registered voters are being used to commit voter fraud.
Eliminate B.