A CR Doubt by Nishchay
================================================== =====================================
I was going through the Critical reasoning section of Princeton study material where I encountered a question mentioned below. I feel the correct answer to the question should be A whereas the correct answer is E.
Fewer elected officials are supporting environment legislation this year than at any time in the last decade. In a study of thirty elected officials, only five were actively campaigning for new environment legislation.This comes at a time when the public's concern for the environment is growing by leaps and bounds.
Which of the following conclusions are supported by the passage above?
A)More elected officials are needed to support environment legislation
B)elected officials have lost touch with the concerns of the public
C)the five elected officials who actively campaigned for new environment legislation, should be congratulated
D)If the environment is to be saved, elected officials must support environment legislation
E)If elected officials are truly to represent their constituents, many of them must increase their support of environment legislation
================================================== =====================================
Dear Nishchay,
The reasoning is as follows.
1. More people are concerned about environment today than a decade ago.
2. Still only 5 out of 30 representatives are campaigning for environmental legislation.
3. Conclusion - Fewer elected officials are supporting environment legislation this year than at any time in the last decade.
The missing link is the disconnect between point 1 and 2. We need a fact that will highlight/resolve the disconnect.
A) "more" is subjective. How many more? Will 6 officials change the game? It does not seem like it. Not a very strong option, but let's keep this.
B) "lost touch" cannot be derived. It is too generic to state as well.
C) "should be congratulated" is an opinion.
D) "must" is too compulsive. It compulsion cannot be justified from the passage.
E) Yes, more people are conscious about environment. So, if the officials are truly representing these people, then more officials must be increasing their support.
Note that this is different than A, because "If elected officials are truly to represent their constituents" part makes it logical to connect people's reaction and officials' reaction. Without this link, we cannot derive anything.
How does this compare with A? A is not very concrete, whereas E has a dedicated logic that fills the missing link. So E is the better choice.
Hence, the best answer choice is E.
================================================== =====================================
================================================== =====================================
I was going through the Critical reasoning section of Princeton study material where I encountered a question mentioned below. I feel the correct answer to the question should be A whereas the correct answer is E.
Fewer elected officials are supporting environment legislation this year than at any time in the last decade. In a study of thirty elected officials, only five were actively campaigning for new environment legislation.This comes at a time when the public's concern for the environment is growing by leaps and bounds.
Which of the following conclusions are supported by the passage above?
A)More elected officials are needed to support environment legislation
B)elected officials have lost touch with the concerns of the public
C)the five elected officials who actively campaigned for new environment legislation, should be congratulated
D)If the environment is to be saved, elected officials must support environment legislation
E)If elected officials are truly to represent their constituents, many of them must increase their support of environment legislation
================================================== =====================================
Dear Nishchay,
The reasoning is as follows.
1. More people are concerned about environment today than a decade ago.
2. Still only 5 out of 30 representatives are campaigning for environmental legislation.
3. Conclusion - Fewer elected officials are supporting environment legislation this year than at any time in the last decade.
The missing link is the disconnect between point 1 and 2. We need a fact that will highlight/resolve the disconnect.
A) "more" is subjective. How many more? Will 6 officials change the game? It does not seem like it. Not a very strong option, but let's keep this.
B) "lost touch" cannot be derived. It is too generic to state as well.
C) "should be congratulated" is an opinion.
D) "must" is too compulsive. It compulsion cannot be justified from the passage.
E) Yes, more people are conscious about environment. So, if the officials are truly representing these people, then more officials must be increasing their support.
Note that this is different than A, because "If elected officials are truly to represent their constituents" part makes it logical to connect people's reaction and officials' reaction. Without this link, we cannot derive anything.
How does this compare with A? A is not very concrete, whereas E has a dedicated logic that fills the missing link. So E is the better choice.
Hence, the best answer choice is E.
================================================== =====================================
Comment