Mashika: We already know from polling data that some segments of the electorate provide significant support to Ms. Puerta. If...

GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions

Source: Official Guide

Critical Reasoning

Inference

HARD

...

Notes

Post a Query

Mashika: We already know from polling data that some segments of the electorate provide significant support to Ms. Puerta. If those segments also provide significant support to Mr. Quintana, then no segment of the electorate that provides significant support to Mr. Quintana provides significant support to Mr. Ramirez.

Salim: But actually, as the latest polling data conclusively shows, at least one segment of the electorate does provide significant support to both Mr. Quintana and Mr. Ramirez.

Among the following statements, which is it most reasonable to infer from the assertions by Mashika and Salim?

At least one segment of the electorate provides significant support neither to Mr. Quintana nor to Mr. Ramirez.

At least one segment of the electorate provides significant support to Ms. Puerta but not to Mr. Quintana.

Each segment of the electorate provides significant support to Ms. Puerta.

Each segment of the electorate provides significant support to Mr. Quintana.

Each segment of the electorate provides significant support to Mr. Ramirez.

Solution

Passage Visualization

Passage Statement	Visualization and Linkage
"We already know from polling data that some segments of the electorate provide significant support to Ms. Puerta."	Establishes Known Fact: At least one segment supports Puerta significantly Example: Segment A (urban professionals) shows 65% support for Puerta Confirmed baseline condition
"If those segments also provide significant support to Mr. Quintana, then no segment of the electorate that provides significant support to Mr. Quintana provides significant support to Mr. Ramirez."	Conditional Logic Chain: IF: Puerta-supporting segments also support Quintana THEN: No Quintana-supporting segment supports Ramirez Example: If Segment A supports both Puerta (65%) and Quintana (60%), then ALL segments supporting Quintana must have 0% support for Ramirez Creates mutually exclusive constraint
"But actually, as the latest polling data conclusively shows, at least one segment of the electorate does provide significant support to both Mr. Quintana and Mr. Ramirez."	Contradictory Evidence: Factual claim: At least one segment supports both Quintana AND Ramirez Example: Segment B shows 55% support for Quintana and 50% support for Ramirez Directly contradicts Mashika's conditional outcome This breaks the mutual exclusivity requirement
Overall Implication	Logical Contradiction Reveals: Since Salim's evidence shows segments can support both Quintana and Ramirez simultaneously, and Mashika's conditional would prohibit this if Puerta-supporting segments also support Quintana, we can conclude that the segments supporting Puerta do NOT also provide significant support to Quintana. Pattern: The existence of Quintana-Ramirez overlap disproves the condition that would create Quintana-Ramirez separation.

Valid Inferences

Inference: The segments of the electorate that provide significant support to Ms. Puerta do not also provide significant support to Mr. Quintana.

Supporting Logic: Since Mashika states that IF Puerta-supporting segments also support Quintana, THEN no segment supporting Quintana would support Ramirez, and since Salim proves that at least one segment does support both Quintana and Ramirez, the conditional's premise must be false. Therefore, the Puerta-supporting segments do not significantly support Quintana.

Clarification Note: This inference follows from logical necessity rather than direct polling data - we're not told explicitly about Puerta-Quintana overlap, but the contradiction between Mashika's conditional and Salim's evidence forces this conclusion.

Answer Choices Explained

At least one segment of the electorate provides significant support neither to Mr. Quintana nor to Mr. Ramirez.

This choice suggests that at least one segment supports neither Quintana nor Ramirez. However, we have no information about segments that might lack support for both candidates. Salim only tells us that at least one segment supports both, but this doesn't tell us anything about segments that might support neither. We cannot infer this from the given information.

At least one segment of the electorate provides significant support to Ms. Puerta but not to Mr. Quintana.

This is correct. From Mashika's conditional logic and Salim's contradictory evidence, we can definitively conclude this. Since Salim proves that segments can support both Quintana and Ramirez (which would be impossible under Mashika's conditional if Puerta-supporting segments also supported Quintana), we know that the Puerta-supporting segments must NOT also significantly support Quintana. This inference flows directly from the logical contradiction between the two statements.

Each segment of the electorate provides significant support to Ms. Puerta.

This claims every segment supports Puerta, which is far too extreme. Mashika only states that "some segments" support Puerta, not all segments. We have no evidence to support such a sweeping generalization about universal support for any candidate.

Each segment of the electorate provides significant support to Mr. Quintana.

This suggests every segment supports Quintana, which again is unsupported. We know some segments support Quintana (from the context), but nothing indicates universal support. The statements don't provide evidence for such a broad claim about all electoral segments.

Each segment of the electorate provides significant support to Mr. Ramirez.

This claims universal support for Ramirez, but like choices C and D, this goes far beyond what we can reasonably infer. We only know that at least one segment supports both Quintana and Ramirez, but this doesn't tell us anything about universal support patterns across all segments.

Rate this Solution

Tell us what you think about this solution

...

Forum Discussions

Start a new discussion

Post

Previous Attempts

Loading attempts...