CR question, mayor's opponents

[monal.kohli]

Hi,

Can someone explain why A is the answer. This is from 800score.

The mayor's opponents claim that the questions surronuding the vice-mayor's tax return make the mayor unfit to be re-relected. The vice-mayor, however, was directly elected by the public in an election prior to the election that put the mayor into office. Furthermore, the vice-mayor's faulty tax return can be clearly traced to an innocent error made by an accountant and it sheds no light on the effectiveness of the vice-mayor to perform his duties.

Which of the following is the main point of the arguement above?

A. The mayor is fit to be re-elected.
B. The vice-mayor is able to perform his duties.
C. Critics should not confuse the mayor's fitness for office with the vice-mayor's fitness for office.
D. The mayor's opponents have another reason for opposing her re-election.
E. The vice-mayor is not at fault for the mistake on his tax return.

[RonPurewal]

Hi,

Can someone explain why A is the answer. This is from 800score.

The mayor's opponents claim that the questions surronuding the vice-mayor's tax return make the mayor unfit to be re-relected. The vice-mayor, however, was directly elected by the public in an election prior to the election that put the mayor into office. Furthermore, the vice-mayor's faulty tax return can be clearly traced to an innocent error made by an accountant and it sheds no light on the effectiveness of the vice-mayor to perform his duties.

Which of the following is the main point of the arguement above?

A. The mayor is fit to be re-elected.
B. The vice-mayor is able to perform his duties.
C. Critics should not confuse the mayor's fitness for office with the vice-mayor's fitness for office.
D. The mayor's opponents have another reason for opposing her re-election.
E. The vice-mayor is not at fault for the mistake on his tax return.

yeah, this is a pretty bad question.

it's bad because the intended point of the paragraph is not really what answer choice (a) says; that answer choice takes it one step too far.

in particular, the point of the paragraph is not to prove that the mayor actually is fit to be reelected; rather, the point is merely to debunk the specific objections that have been raised against the mayor's fitness.

in other words, choice (a) says, basically, "the mayor is absolutely fit for office."

the argument, on the other hand, doesn't actually go that far -- the argument basically just says, "well, the mayor may or may not be fit for reelection, but these particular objections to his reelection are not valid."

--

of the five choices listed here, (a) is definitely the closest to the point of the argument, but it is still not close enough to pass muster as a real gmat question.

[DeepakP949]

Hi,

Can someone explain why A is the answer. This is from 800score.

The mayor's opponents claim that the questions surronuding the vice-mayor's tax return make the mayor unfit to be re-relected. The vice-mayor, however, was directly elected by the public in an election prior to the election that put the mayor into office. Furthermore, the vice-mayor's faulty tax return can be clearly traced to an innocent error made by an accountant and it sheds no light on the effectiveness of the vice-mayor to perform his duties.

Which of the following is the main point of the arguement above?

A. The mayor is fit to be re-elected.
B. The vice-mayor is able to perform his duties.
C. Critics should not confuse the mayor's fitness for office with the vice-mayor's fitness for office.
D. The mayor's opponents have another reason for opposing her re-election.
E. The vice-mayor is not at fault for the mistake on his tax return.

yeah, this is a pretty bad question.

it's bad because the intended point of the paragraph is not really what answer choice (a) says; that answer choice takes it one step too far.

in particular, the point of the paragraph is not to prove that the mayor actually is fit to be reelected; rather, the point is merely to debunk the specific objections that have been raised against the mayor's fitness.

in other words, choice (a) says, basically, "the mayor is absolutely fit for office."

the argument, on the other hand, doesn't actually go that far -- the argument basically just says, "well, the mayor may or may not be fit for reelection, but these particular objections to his reelection are not valid."

--

of the five choices listed here, (a) is definitely the closest to the point of the argument, but it is still not close enough to pass muster as a real gmat question.

Am sorry to say but instead of clarifying the doubt, yo have made the explanation more complex and tricky. Please clarify why the answer is "A". The explanation provided was not helpful.
Regards

[tim]

Ron's primary point was that this is a poor question to begin with. So instead of looking for any explanations at all, you should ignore this question and move on to others that will be more helpful in studying for the GMAT.

[RonPurewal]

in simple terms:

• the ACTUAL point of the argument is 'The opponents' claims are rubbish/worthless/invalid.'
... in other words, the point is, "If you want to say this person SHOULDN'T run for office, THOSE ARE NOT GOOD REASONS."

• the problem is flawed because choice A is much too strong.
again, the argument just says, "THESE ARE NOT GOOD REASONS why this person SHOULDN'T run for office."
on the other hand, there could certainly be plenty of OTHER good reasons why (s)he shouldn't!