CR

[QV]

[Deleted because, according to the poster, "I don't remember the source anymore, sorry. " Please read (and follow!) the forum guidelines before posting. Unfortunately, due to copyright laws, we cannot answer, or even host, problems that do not cite the author(s) of the problem.]

What's the answer?

[QV]

I am split between a couple of choices, but am waiting for other people to contribute before I lay my doubts because I would not like to bias their thinking. Thanks.

[Guest]

[question deleted see above]

A for me.. It says total contributions were up because Few people donated large sums of money to P candidates, but a large number of them donated much less money. Thus it directly weakens the inference.

[QV]

Anyone for E? OA is actually E.

I can understand why A can be wrong. Basically, they are saying because average contribution per person is down, more number of people might have contributed, which is why the total contributions are up. OK. But this does not refute the conclusion that the interest in politics is greater, because more people are contributing after all.

E is saying that the conclusion that contributions are up because of interest in politics going up could not be true because fewer people voted (and hence interest in politics is actually down, logically speaking). I can buy that argument to a certain extent. But doesn't E also seem out of scope. The passage mentions contributions as a measure for gauging interest in politics. Should we apply our own brain to conclude that the stated cause (interest going up) could not be true because logically, voting less means lesser interest? Someone could easily say that's out of scope, right?

Suggestions welcome.

[rfernandez]

QV, what's the source of this problem? Is it from the CR Strategy Guide? I just flipped through those problems and couldn't find it. Thanks.

[QV]

I don't remember the source anymore, sorry.

But what do you think of my comments above?

[SP]

if you wanted to determine how politically active people are, what kind of test would you devise? You might do a survey to test political awareness; you might do a survey to find out how hours people devote to political campaigning each week or how many hours they spend writing letters, etc.; or you might get a rough estimate by studying voting statistics. The paragraph takes contributions as a measure of political activity. (E) is correct for two reasons. One, the paragraph says nothing about individual activity. It says ttotal contributions were up, not average or per person contributions. Second, (E) cites voting patterns which seem as good as or better an indicator of political activity than giving money. This second reason explains why (A) is wrong. (A) may weaken the argument, but a stronger attack would use voting patterns.

[QV]

Exactly my point. "The paragraph takes contributions as a measure of political activity." Switiching to having the measure be voting patterns is going out of scope. Don't you think?

[StaceyKoprince]

Please make sure to read (and follow) all forum guidelines. Also, this folder is for questions or problems associated with the ManhattanGMAT Verbal Strategy Guides only - please do not post questions from other sources here, and please do not post questions for which you have no source here or elsewhere on the MGMAT forums.