GMAT Verbal: Journalist: Well-known business Arnold B....

[george.kourdin]

[redacted]

This question was posted from the GMAT Official Verbal Guide. For forum rules please see: https://www.manhattanprep.com/gmat/foru ... t1879.html

[jnelson0612]

==================
obviously i picked (b). i understand why (e) is the right answer, but i don't agree with the explanation for why (b) is wrong. can someone pls point out the flaws in my logic and advise on how to avoid this mistake in the future?

the argument states that we learned that AB fullfiled the fin disclosure for candidacy by submitting a list of his holdings. in my mind, the link between submitting a list of his fin holdings and running for governor is muddy. what if AB submitted a detailed list of his current holdings for some other reason? can we safely assume that if A causes B, it necessarily leads to C? the link is very close here and it almost feels like there isn't much room for assumptions, but often times, i feel like this is exactly what GMAT will catch you on. Thus, i picked (b) - if submitting these docs is the absolutely only way to fullfill the commisions fin disclosure, then the link is confirmed and he must be running for governor?

what am i missing here? how can i avoid leveling myself like this and strike a balance between careful analysis/paying attention to detail and over-analysis?

thanks a lot

Sure. Focus on what the argument is saying at its core.

AB has submitted his financial holdings
THUS
He is going to run for governor.

The author clearly thinks that the submission itself indicates that he will run. However, what if AB changes his mind? Or what if he is just submitting this information so he can have the option of running? How do we know if the submission is a good prediction of whether he would run?

Take a fresh look at these two answer choices--which one would really help us decide how accurate of a predictor the submission is?

[jyothi h]

obviously i picked (b). i understand why (e) is the right answer, but i don't agree with the explanation for why (b) is wrong. can someone pls point out the flaws in my logic and advise on how to avoid this mistake in the future?

the argument states that we learned that AB fullfiled the fin disclosure for candidacy by submitting a list of his holdings. in my mind, the link between submitting a list of his fin holdings and running for governor is muddy. what if AB submitted a detailed list of his current holdings for some other reason? can we safely assume that if A causes B, it necessarily leads to C? the link is very close here and it almost feels like there isn't much room for assumptions, but often times, i feel like this is exactly what GMAT will catch you on. Thus, i picked (b) - if submitting these docs is the absolutely only way to fullfill the commisions fin disclosure, then the link is confirmed and he must be running for governor?

what am i missing here? how can i avoid leveling myself like this and strike a balance between careful analysis/paying attention to detail and over-analysis?

thanks a lot

Sure. Focus on what the argument is saying at its core.

AB has submitted his financial holdings
THUS
He is going to run for governor.

The author clearly thinks that the submission itself indicates that he will run. However, what if AB changes his mind? Or what if he is just submitting this information so he can have the option of running? How do we know if the submission is a good prediction of whether he would run?

Take a fresh look at these two answer choices--which one would really help us decide how accurate of a predictor the submission is?

Hi Jamie ,

I see what you are trying to say , as to why E is the answer .
Although I still cannot figure out a way to eliminate B . B sounds equally strong .
B - Is submitting a list of holdings the only way to fulfill the election commission’s financial disclosure requirements?
If the answer is "no" , then it affects the argument "it is
very likely that Bergeron will be a candidate for governor this year."

Appreciate if you help me out with this .

Thanks
Jyothi

[jlucero]

Hi Jamie ,

I see what you are trying to say , as to why E is the answer .
Although I still cannot figure out a way to eliminate B . B sounds equally strong .
B - Is submitting a list of holdings the only way to fulfill the election commission’s financial disclosure requirements?
If the answer is "no" , then it affects the argument "it is
very likely that Bergeron will be a candidate for governor this year."

Appreciate if you help me out with this .

Thanks
Jyothi

My question to you is which of the following scenarios would AB be more likely to run for governor?

Submitting a list of holdings is the only way to run for governor?
or
Submitting a list of holdings is not the only way to run for governor?

I think you're looking at this backwards here- if there's only one way to run for governor, then someone would need to submit their list of holdings. But just because someone lists their holdings does not guarantee that they are running for governor. Just because you need to fill out tax forms in order to become president, doesn't mean that everyone who fills out tax forms is running for president.

[tusharkhatri18]

Hi,
(C) Did the information recently obtained by the journalist come directly from the election commission?
(E) Had Bergeron also fulfilled the financial disclosure requirements for candidacy before any previous gubernatorial elections?

According to me option C is the right answer because it shows the authenticity of Journalist's argument. If the information collected by him is false Bergeron will not be a probable candidate and vice-versa.
Option E only tells whether Bergeron fulfilled the same thing last year or not. Anything that happened last year would not affect anything happening next year.

Please clear my confusion how E is OA.

[RonPurewal]

choice C does nothing, because "bergeron has fullfilled the financial disclosure requirement for candidacy by submitting a detailed list of his current financial holdings to the election commission" is already stated as a fact.

if something is already a fact, then you can't make it more of a fact. (analogy: if you already know how old i am, then looking directly at my birth certificate won't change anything.)

[RonPurewal]

here's a simpler analogy:

Tom, who has never run the L.A. Marathon before, has signed up for this year's race. So, he is definitely going to run this year's L.A. Marathon.

choice E is like "has tom signed up in previous years?"
if the answer is yes -- i.e., tom has signed up in previous years without following through -- then we definitely can't be so sure anymore.

[RonPurewal]

Anything that happened last year would not affect anything happening next year

this ^^ is tantamount to saying that there is nothing consistent about anyone's behavior, ever. that's not a viable way to think.

[tusharkhatri18]

Tom, who has never run the L.A. Marathon before, has signed up for this year's race. So, he is definitely going to run this year's L.A. Marathon.

Hi Ron,
According to the analogy given by you here above, it is clear that it is the fact that Tom has signed up for this year's race.
But coming back to the argument question, the whole premise is stated by Journalist - quoted as "Journalist:". It means even if we are considering any fact from the given premise, that fact is solely derived from Journalist's point of view. So that fact also may be his own perception. That's where I think option C is right because it checks authenticity of Journalist's statement.

Please correct me where I am going wrong.

[RonPurewal]

the presence of "journalist:" changes nothing. if something is stated as a fact, it's still a fact.

[RonPurewal]

even if there's no "name:" before an argument, it obviously has to be presented by a person!
you're trying to draw a contrast with something that doesn't exist; there's no such thing as an argument that isn't delivered by a person.

here, that person is specifically named ("journalist"), but that doesn't change the meaning of any of the statements.

[tusharkhatri18]

Hi Ron Sir,
Your explanation is completely understood to me.

There is similar kind of question given in OG 13. But its explanation says that something different. Can I discuss that question here?

Thanks and Regards
Tushar

[RonPurewal]

sure, as long as you can find a way to ask without quoting the text of the question.

[tusharkhatri18]

[redacted]

[RonPurewal]

please read more carefully; i specifically said "...without quoting the text", and you quoted the entire text of the problem.