Critical Reasoning

Journalist: Well-known 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 journalists 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?

I choose E.

What is the source?????

IMO, No choice makes sense

After unnecessary assumptions, C and E are close......

E only hits one side, --- 1) When he dislcosed his financial asset last year
but not the other side 2) When he did not dislcose his financial asset last year

1) implies--> it is not likely that he will become governor
2) implies--> nothing.

imo:E


i had this Cr in one of the files i dwnloaded online and have an explanation for it..



The fact that Bergeron has fulfilled the financial disclosure requirement is used as evidence in support of the conclusion that he will run for governor this year. If he fulfilled the same requirement in the past but never ran, then the evidence does not support the conclusion.


i hope this helps...

yes it should be E only

B for me....

IMO B

If submitting a list of holdings the only way to fulfill the election commission’s financial disclosure requirements, then he will run for governor.

If submitting a list of holdings is not the only way to fulfill the election commission’s financial disclosure requirements, then there are other factors that will decide that he will run for elections. Thus weaken the argument.

Hence, B

i dont think B is correct because that option talks ONLY about the election commission's financial disclosure requirements.

there could be other things that a candidate could do to indicate candidacy.

I think B too.....for the same reason explained by schumi....

Pls post the OA

I would say E

1) He had been said to run many times, but he never did
2) This time he is likely to run, in fact...
3) ...he has fulfilled X

BUT, if he fulfilled X the same wat in the past, when he actually did not run, this DOES NOT MEAN that this time he is likely to run!

could some post the OA for this..
I m still confused b/w C and E..

I don't think there is any correct choice ...

B is wrong in the sense that even if submitting a list of holdings is only way to fulfill the election commission’s financial disclosure requirements,that doesnt give any hint on judging the candidacy of Arnold Bergeron .Flaw is that Arnold Bergeron might not be standing as gubernatorial candidate even after fulfilling the election commission’s financial disclosure requirements.The 'only' in choice B dosent say that if the if the list if holdings is submitted,a candidate has to stand for governer candidacy.

E is wrong in the sense that even if the governor fulfilled the financial disclosure requirements for candidacy before any previous gubernatorial elections,it does not necessarily mean that he must be standing for the elections whenever he fulfills the financial disclosure requirements

Its E !! 90 % sure !!

Guys, This is from Offical Guide for GMAT verbal Review.

Answer is indeed E.


https://books.google.co.in/books?id=W5XO ... r.&f=false

At some places on the internet, answer is cited as B

imo b

Can somebody throw light on it