According to the last pre-election poll in Whippleton, most voters believe that the three problems government needs to address, in...
GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions
According to the last pre-election poll in Whippleton, most voters believe that the three problems government needs to address, in order of importance, are pollution, crime, and unemployment. Yet in the election, candidates from parties perceived as strongly against pollution were defeated, while those elected were all from parties with a history of opposing legislation designed to reduce pollution. These results should not be taken to indicate that the poll was inaccurate, however, since ________________.
Which of the following most logically completes the passage?
Passage Analysis:
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
| According to the last pre-election poll in Whippleton, most voters believe that the three problems government needs to address, in order of importance, are pollution, crime, and unemployment. |
|
| Yet in the election, candidates from parties perceived as strongly against pollution were defeated, while those elected were all from parties with a history of opposing legislation designed to reduce pollution. |
|
| These results should not be taken to indicate that the poll was inaccurate, however, since ___________. |
|
Argument Flow:
We start with poll data showing voters want pollution addressed most. Then we see election results that go completely against this - anti-pollution candidates lost. The author then claims the poll wasn't wrong and needs us to find a reason that explains this contradiction.
Main Conclusion:
The poll showing pollution as voters' top priority was accurate, even though anti-pollution candidates lost the election.
Logical Structure:
This is a 'resolve the paradox' structure. We have two seemingly contradictory facts (poll says voters prioritize pollution, but anti-pollution candidates lost). The author claims both facts can be true and we need to find the missing piece that explains how both can coexist without the poll being inaccurate.
Prethinking:
Question type:
Logically Completes - We need to find a statement that provides a reasonable explanation for why the poll can still be accurate even though election results went against what voters said they wanted.
Precision of Claims
The argument presents specific facts: voters ranked pollution as #1 priority in polls, but anti-pollution candidates lost while pro-pollution candidates won. We need to respect these facts and find logical explanations.
Strategy
Since this is a 'Logically Completes' question, we need to find scenarios that reconcile the apparent contradiction between poll results and election outcomes. The key is finding explanations that allow both the poll to be accurate (voters really did care about pollution) AND the election results to make sense (anti-pollution candidates still lost). We should look for factors that could influence voting behavior beyond just issue preferences.
'some voters in Whippleton do not believe that pollution needs to be reduced' - This doesn't resolve the paradox effectively. The passage states that 'most voters' believe pollution is the top priority, so having 'some voters' who disagree doesn't explain why anti-pollution candidates lost across the board. This would only account for a small portion of votes and wouldn't explain the systematic defeat of anti-pollution candidates.
'every candidate who was defeated had a strong antipollution record' - This just restates what we already know from the passage. We're told that candidates perceived as strongly against pollution were defeated. This doesn't provide any new information or explanation for why the poll could still be accurate despite these results.
'there were no issues other than crime, unemployment, and pollution on which the candidates had significant differences of opinion' - This doesn't help resolve the contradiction. If anything, it makes the paradox stronger by confirming that these three issues were the only differentiators, making it even more puzzling why anti-pollution candidates lost when pollution was voters' top priority.
'all the candidates who were elected were perceived as being stronger against both crime and unemployment than the candidates who were defeated' - This perfectly resolves the paradox. While voters may have ranked pollution as their #1 priority, they also cared about crime (#2) and unemployment (#3). If the elected candidates were significantly stronger on issues #2 and #3, voters might reasonably choose them despite their weaker stance on pollution. The poll remains accurate about issue rankings, but election results make sense based on overall candidate strength across all important issues.
'many of the people who voted in the election refused to participate in the poll' - This suggests the poll might not be representative of actual voters, but the passage specifically argues that the poll should NOT be taken as inaccurate. This choice undermines the poll's accuracy rather than defending it, which goes against the argument's direction.