-
keithyang926
- Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2012 11:17 pm
Hi guys, I got doubts on a CR question, posted below,
Journalist: Well-know businessman Arnold Bergeron has long been popular in the state, and he has often talked about running for governor, but he has never run. However, we have just learned that Bergeron has fulfilled the financial disclosure requirement for candidacy by submitting a detailed list of his current financial holdings to the election commission. So, it is very likely that Bergeron will be a candidate for governor this year.
The answer to which of the following questions would be most useful in evaluating the journalist's argument?
(A) Has anybody else who has fulfilled the financial disclosure requirement for the upcoming election reported greater financial holdings than Bergeron?
(B) Is submitting a list of holdings the only way to fulfill the election commission's financial disclosure requirements?
(C) Did the information recently obtained by the journalist come directly from the election commission?
(D) Have Bergeron's financial holdings increased in value in recent years?
(E) Had Bergeron also fulfilled the financial disclosure requirements for candidacy before any previous gubernatorial elections?
The correct answer is E, but I'm wondeing whether evaluating the history info of Bergeron is essential to the argument here. Even if we know he did file the financial paper and not run before, it doesn't have to mean he would not hang on and run this time. I think what is more crucial here, is that if he also fulfilled any other requirements needed for his candidacy, or has he really set up his mind for this election. Well, in a word, I don't think answer E adequately addresses the critical point here.
Moreover, I'm from asia, I thought filing a financial paper already signals your running for the governor, but according to the OG, you can file this paper, but you can choose to not RUN, so the "RUN" here is actually the later action, and filing the financial paper is not part of the process of "RUN", confused...
Journalist: Well-know businessman Arnold Bergeron has long been popular in the state, and he has often talked about running for governor, but he has never run. However, we have just learned that Bergeron has fulfilled the financial disclosure requirement for candidacy by submitting a detailed list of his current financial holdings to the election commission. So, it is very likely that Bergeron will be a candidate for governor this year.
The answer to which of the following questions would be most useful in evaluating the journalist's argument?
(A) Has anybody else who has fulfilled the financial disclosure requirement for the upcoming election reported greater financial holdings than Bergeron?
(B) Is submitting a list of holdings the only way to fulfill the election commission's financial disclosure requirements?
(C) Did the information recently obtained by the journalist come directly from the election commission?
(D) Have Bergeron's financial holdings increased in value in recent years?
(E) Had Bergeron also fulfilled the financial disclosure requirements for candidacy before any previous gubernatorial elections?
The correct answer is E, but I'm wondeing whether evaluating the history info of Bergeron is essential to the argument here. Even if we know he did file the financial paper and not run before, it doesn't have to mean he would not hang on and run this time. I think what is more crucial here, is that if he also fulfilled any other requirements needed for his candidacy, or has he really set up his mind for this election. Well, in a word, I don't think answer E adequately addresses the critical point here.
Moreover, I'm from asia, I thought filing a financial paper already signals your running for the governor, but according to the OG, you can file this paper, but you can choose to not RUN, so the "RUN" here is actually the later action, and filing the financial paper is not part of the process of "RUN", confused...
